Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, reserving my right to object, the Senator from Oklahoma, as he always does, has very thoughtfully identified a problem that is affecting our military forces. And he has also identified the complex interplay between different aspects of the law: article 32, article 10, the authority of the Governor, the authority of the Secretary of Defense, legislation we might have passed. This is an issue that, I think, bears close scrutiny, and I would like to assist in such scrutiny. But in terms of preemptively adopting a statute tonight without such scrutiny, I would be compelled to object. So, Mr. President, with all due respect to the Senator from Oklahoma, I would object.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, now I would ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up the following amendments to the Reed-Inhofe substitute amendment No. 3867, as modified, in the order listed, and that these be the only remaining amendments in order: 1, Cruz No. 4656; 2, Kaine No. 4133; 3, Peters-Portman No. 4799; 4, Scott of Florida No. 4831; 5, Marshall No. 4093; 6, King-Rounds No. 4784; 7, Hawley No. 4140; 8 Hassan-Cornyn No. 4255; 9, Paul No. 4395; 10, Sanders No. 4654; 11, Daines No. 4236; 12, Menendez No. 4786; 13, Lujan-Crapo No. 4260; 14, Lee No. 4793; 15, Sanders No. 4722; 16, Portman-Shaheen No. 4540; 17, Menendez No. 4860; 18, Risch No. 4859; 19, Durbin-Lee No. 3939; 20, Shaheen-Collins No. 4584; 21, Kennedy No. 4660; 22, Ossoff-Tillis No. 4802; 23, Lankford No. 4100; 24, Cardin-Wicker No. 3980; that the Senate vote at 10 a.m. on Thursday, December 2, in relation to any first-degree amendment offered in the order listed above, with 60- affirmative votes required for adoption of the above amendments in this agreement; further, that upon disposition of the above amendments, the Senate vote on cloture on amendment No. 3867, as modified, upon reconsideration; and the motion to invoke cloture on H.R. 4350 be withdrawn; that if cloture is invoked upon reconsideration, the Reed amendment No. 4775 be withdrawn and the Senate vote on the substitute, as modified and as amended, if amended; that the bill be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on the passage of the bill, as amended, if amended; and that there be 2 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form, prior to each vote, all without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. REED. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I object. I also want to thank the Senator from Utah for his consideration.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I object to the modification.

Mr. REED. Madam President, in reserving my right to object, the Senator from Florida is right. The key issue here is the blue slip, which originates from the constitutional language mandating that all revenue bills must begin in the House of Representatives. If it is determined by the House that it is a revenue bill, then anyone--I am informed in the House--can object, not just to the amendment of the gentleman from Florida but to the entire bill. Essentially, if we pursue this, we would put at risk the entire National Defense Authorization Act for reasons that could be related to the issue the Senator from Florida brings up, but it could be related to many other issues, and there are quite a few issues in this bill. So, for that reason, I would object to the modification.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, it would be a very disappointing moment if we would fail to invoke cloture. This bill, from the very beginning, has been completely bipartisan and open to amendments. In the course, as Senator King eloquently remarked, of the committee hearing, we included over 100 amendments on a bipartisan basis. We came to the floor with a bill that passed our committee 23 to 3--overwhelmingly bipartisan. We also brought to the floor a substitute amendment, including, approximately, 60 amendments that were also bipartisan. And then we had another series of nearly 20 amendments that was bipartisan, that would have been voted on, but they were objected to because several Members did not get their amendments. Now, just to point out, the majority of those amendments aren't even within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. They don't relate directly to the men and women of the armed services. They might have foreign policy implications, but they are not something that is essential to the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act. I can recall many times on this floor when the NDAA was brought up; both sides could not agree on amendments; we went through the process; we invoked cloture; we voted on the substitute bill; and we went off to conference. So this would not be the first occasion on which, ironically, a few people did not get their amendments. In fact, on previous occasions, there were many, many people who did not get their amendments. And so, again, I go back to the point that we have produced a bipartisan piece of legislation. I commend the ranking member. We worked with closely the subcommittee chairs and the subcommittee ranking members. The staff has done a superb job. And we are here, just one procedural vote away from moving forward, and I think we should move forward for the benefit of the men and women of the armed services, as Senator King, again, so eloquently described. I think the other factor, too, is that eventually we have to reconcile whatever we do or attempt to do with the House of Representatives. Certainly, I think it gives us much more credibility, much more clout, and much more leverage when we have a strong bill that has passed on the floor of the Senate. We are not talking about 100 amendments that we have to consider. We are talking about a handful of Senators who didn't get their way, even though many others were frustrated. I think, again, our duty is to move forward to pass this cloture vote this evening, then to move forward to final passage, and then to reconcile our differences with the House and come back with legislation. At this point--and I think the ranking member would agree with me--as it stands right now, I would be proud to pass this legislation because it is bipartisan, it responds to the needs of the men and women of the Armed Forces, and it establishes robust resources for the Department of Defense much more than were advocated by the President in his budget. So we are taking a strong step forward, and I just would hate to see this as a sidestep away from final passage. I would urge all of my colleagues to vote for cloture.

Mr. REED. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. REED. I thank the majority leader for his comments and just to elaborate, this represents what the majority leader just pointed out--a few Members on the other side frustrated the entire process and, ironically, frustrated many of their own colleagues in their caucus who had amendments, either in the substitute agreement or were ready to be voted on. So this is really a question of doing our utmost, as we have in the past, not for individual points but for the support of the men and women in the military. That was the spirit that guided our efforts in the committee. Working closely with Senator Inhofe and all the Members on both sides, we recognized that what we do ultimately affects the safety and the welfare of our men and women in uniform and their families. And this legislation would accomplish a great deal. This is, in my sense, one of the most bipartisan bills we have ever considered. It is unfortunate that we can't move forward on a bipartisan basis, consider this bill, and then go to the House and come back with a final legislation for consideration by this Senate. We will have to do an NDAA. It will be done. I think Senator Inhofe is committed to that, as I am, and we will have to use procedures that are appropriate to get it done. But we just missed an opportunity to send a clear message that we support this legislation, we support our troops. We are going to get to final passage, and then we are going to go to the House, and then we will send the bill to the President of the United States. I should note that one of the other reasons that many amendments were not brought up for debate is because they are not in the purview of the Armed Services Committee. There were foreign policy issues; there were sanctions issues, et cetera. The NDAA often serves as a vehicle to move those issues along, but it is not central to the purpose of the bill. Our nation faces an enormous range of security challenges, and it is more important than ever that we provide our military men and women with the support they need to keep Americans safe. To that end, this bill makes great progress. It addresses a broad range of pressing issues, from strategic competition with China and Russia, to investing in game-changing technologies, to modernizing our ships, aircraft, and vehicles. It provides our servicemembers with the resources and support they need to defend our Nation, while at the same taking care of their families. That is why we are here on the floor with the national defense authorization act. It is not only an opportunity, but a responsibility. Tonight, we demonstrated irresponsibility to those who serve and their families. I regret it immensely. Now, I look forward, again, to working with my colleague Senator Inhofe and all Members of the committee, to continue forward to develop legislation that will be acceptable to this body and pass, as we have for 60-some-odd years, the National Defense Authorization Act. I recognize and thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding to me. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my great disappointment that some of my colleagues have indicated by their vote that they are preventing the adoption of the National Defense Authorization Act, and they claim that more amendments and more debate are needed. This bill has been bipartisan from the beginning. It incorporated over 100 amendments at the committee level. There were approximately 60 additional amendments in the substitute, which were agreed to on a bipartisan basis. Last week before we adjourned, we offered nearly 20 more amendments on a bipartisan basis, and they were rejected by my colleagues on the Republican side, just as this evening, this motion for cloture was rejected by the Republicans. They had their opportunity to consider more amendments. We had 19 amendments ready last week that were brought forward on an equal basis to be debated and voted upon. But that was blocked by several of my Republican colleagues. One of the ironies this evening is that many of my colleagues, who had their amendments denied by fellow Republican objections, came down and voted against the bill. That doesn't seem to be particularly logical, in my mind. Now, in the course of NDAAs--and I have done a few--there have been periods in which there has been extensive considerations of the bill with very few, if any, amendments. There have been times in which only a handful of amendments were presented before we voted on cloture, passed cloture, and passed the bill. So this is an unusual departure from procedure, particularly with a bill that has so much bipartisan support. The bill passed out of committee 23 to 3 because it represented all of the principled points that my colleagues wanted. In the course of the committee deliberations, there were 300 amendments presented, and we adopted 143. Mr. President, let me yield to the majority leader.

Mr. REED. That is absolutely correct. There have been occasions where we have had--once we got the substitute adopted--in some cases, no amendments and we went to final passage, ultimately, and in other cases, just a handful of amendments. Last year, I don't believe we had the kind of amendments we are offering this year, some of them have nothing whatsoever to do with the national defense. The nearly 20 amendments we were proposing were nearly equally divided to be bipartisan. And, frankly, to your point, I think this would represent more amendments than in the many years I witnessed the passage of the NDAA.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 4775 and I ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3867, as modified, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business being conducted on the following dates and times, and that following each pro forma session, the Senate adjourn until the next pro forma session: Tuesday, November 23, at 8:15 a.m. and Friday, November 26, at 10 a.m. I further ask that when the Senate adjourns on Friday, November 26, it next convene at 3 p.m., Monday, November 29; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 4350, the National Defense Authorization Act; further, that the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, November 29; finally, that the filing deadline for first-degree amendments to substitute amendment No. 3867, as modified, and the underlying bill, H.R. 4350, be at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, November 29.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, November 19, be waived.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to H.R. 4350 to the desk.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the substitute to the desk.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 521, 492, 493, 494, 537, 538, 553, 554, and all nominations on the Secretary's Desk in the Coast Guard and the Foreign Service; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc, without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I renew my original request.