Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the Investment in Tomorrow's Pediatric Workforce Act with Senator Cassidy. This critical legislation would provide funding for the Title VII pediatric subspecialty loan repayment program. The Title VII health professions programs have a longstanding history of increasing the supply of health care professionals, expanding access to care in rural and urban underserved areas, and developing a workforce that reflects the Nation's diversity and the needs of patients. These education and training programs guide current and aspiring health professionals to high-demand careers in areas of greatest need. Pediatric subspecialty care is one such shortage area. According to the American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, there are currently only 8,300 child and adolescent psychiatrists (CAPs) in the United States--many of whom are not practicing full time--far short of the estimated need of over 30,000 CAPs. On average, patients wait almost two months to see a CAP, a startling concern given that the incidence rates of mental illness and behavioral disorders among children in the United States continue to grow. Fifty percent of all lifetime cases of mental illness begin at age 14; seventy-five percent by age 24. This legislation would take an important first step in incentivizing more health care professionals to go into pediatric subspecialties and increase the supply of these professionals to ensure more children have greater access to the health care they need. I look forward to working with stakeholders supporting the legislation including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Arthritis Foundation, the American College of Rheumatology, and the Child Neurology Society, as well as my colleague, Senator Cassidy, to pass the Investment in Tomorrow's Pediatric Workforce Act, and to strengthen all of the Title VII health professions programs.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the Investment in Tomorrow's Pediatric Workforce Act with Senator Cassidy. This critical legislation would provide funding for the Title VII pediatric subspecialty loan repayment program. The Title VII health professions programs have a longstanding history of increasing the supply of health care professionals, expanding access to care in rural and urban underserved areas, and developing a workforce that reflects the Nation's diversity and the needs of patients. These education and training programs guide current and aspiring health professionals to high-demand careers in areas of greatest need. Pediatric subspecialty care is one such shortage area. According to the American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, there are currently only 8,300 child and adolescent psychiatrists (CAPs) in the United States--many of whom are not practicing full time--far short of the estimated need of over 30,000 CAPs. On average, patients wait almost two months to see a CAP, a startling concern given that the incidence rates of mental illness and behavioral disorders among children in the United States continue to grow. Fifty percent of all lifetime cases of mental illness begin at age 14; seventy-five percent by age 24. This legislation would take an important first step in incentivizing more health care professionals to go into pediatric subspecialties and increase the supply of these professionals to ensure more children have greater access to the health care they need. I look forward to working with stakeholders supporting the legislation including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Arthritis Foundation, the American College of Rheumatology, and the Child Neurology Society, as well as my colleague, Senator Cassidy, to pass the Investment in Tomorrow's Pediatric Workforce Act, and to strengthen all of the Title VII health professions programs.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am introducing the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act with Senators Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Merkley, Baldwin, Warren, Van Hollen, and Brown. This legislation would end special tax deductions for huge executive bonuses by closing a loophole that still allows publicly traded corporations to deduct the cost of multimillion-dollar bonuses from their corporate tax bills. U.S. taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize these massive bonuses. Under section 162(m) of the tax code as amended by the 2017 Trump tax law (TCJA), when a publicly traded corporation calculates its taxable income, it is generally permitted to deduct the cost of compensation from its revenues, with limits up to $1 million for some of the firm's most senior executives. In the last Congress, the TCJA closed some of the pre-existing 162(m) loopholes by incorporating provisions from my Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act, including removing the exemption for performance-based compensation, which previously permitted compensation deductions above $1 million when executives met performance benchmarks set by the corporation's Board of Directors. In addition, a technical correction from my bill to ensure that all publicly traded corporations that are required to provide quarterly and annual reports to their investors under Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations are subject to section l62(m) was also included in the TCJA. Previously, this section of the tax code only covered some publicly traded corporations who are required to provide these periodic reports to their shareholders. While these were positive steps, even more should have been done, such as applying section 162(m) to all employees of publicly traded corporations so that all compensation is subject to a deductibility cap of $1 million. This was the lone provision from my Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act from the 115th Congress that was not incorporated into the Trump tax law. Partially closing these 162(m) loopholes saved taxpayers $9.2 billion according to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), but according to Americans for Tax Fairness, ``Extending the $1 million deductibility cap to all forms of compensation for all employees might generate about $20 billion over 10 years. This is based on JCT's original $50 billion revenue estimate, discounted to $30 billion because of the 40% corporate tax cut, and subtracting the $9.2 billion already being raised by the TCJA's partial reform.'' This is why we are introducing a revised version of the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act to finish what was started. Our legislation would extend section 162(m) to all employees of publicly traded corporations so that all compensation is subject to a deductibility cap of $1 million. Publicly traded corporations would still be permitted to pay their executives as much as they desire, but compensation above and beyond $1 million would no longer be subsidized by other hardworking taxpayers through our tax code. Our legislation tackles this issue head on by ending the public subsidy of excessive executive compensation. This is simply a matter of fairness, ensuring that corporations--and not hardworking taxpayers who face their own challenges in this economy--are paying for the multi- million dollar bonuses corporations have decided to dole out to their senior executives. We need to prioritize tax breaks that grow our economy and strengthen the middle class, and this bill helps eliminate some of the unfairness in the tax code. I thank Public Citizen, the Institute for Policy Studies, Global Economy Project, Americans for Financial Reform, the AFL-CIO, and MIT Professor Simon Johnson for their support. I also want to thank Senator Blumenthal for working with me on this issue, and I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am introducing the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act with Senators Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Merkley, Baldwin, Warren, Van Hollen, and Brown. This legislation would end special tax deductions for huge executive bonuses by closing a loophole that still allows publicly traded corporations to deduct the cost of multimillion-dollar bonuses from their corporate tax bills. U.S. taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize these massive bonuses. Under section 162(m) of the tax code as amended by the 2017 Trump tax law (TCJA), when a publicly traded corporation calculates its taxable income, it is generally permitted to deduct the cost of compensation from its revenues, with limits up to $1 million for some of the firm's most senior executives. In the last Congress, the TCJA closed some of the pre-existing 162(m) loopholes by incorporating provisions from my Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act, including removing the exemption for performance-based compensation, which previously permitted compensation deductions above $1 million when executives met performance benchmarks set by the corporation's Board of Directors. In addition, a technical correction from my bill to ensure that all publicly traded corporations that are required to provide quarterly and annual reports to their investors under Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations are subject to section l62(m) was also included in the TCJA. Previously, this section of the tax code only covered some publicly traded corporations who are required to provide these periodic reports to their shareholders. While these were positive steps, even more should have been done, such as applying section 162(m) to all employees of publicly traded corporations so that all compensation is subject to a deductibility cap of $1 million. This was the lone provision from my Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act from the 115th Congress that was not incorporated into the Trump tax law. Partially closing these 162(m) loopholes saved taxpayers $9.2 billion according to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), but according to Americans for Tax Fairness, ``Extending the $1 million deductibility cap to all forms of compensation for all employees might generate about $20 billion over 10 years. This is based on JCT's original $50 billion revenue estimate, discounted to $30 billion because of the 40% corporate tax cut, and subtracting the $9.2 billion already being raised by the TCJA's partial reform.'' This is why we are introducing a revised version of the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act to finish what was started. Our legislation would extend section 162(m) to all employees of publicly traded corporations so that all compensation is subject to a deductibility cap of $1 million. Publicly traded corporations would still be permitted to pay their executives as much as they desire, but compensation above and beyond $1 million would no longer be subsidized by other hardworking taxpayers through our tax code. Our legislation tackles this issue head on by ending the public subsidy of excessive executive compensation. This is simply a matter of fairness, ensuring that corporations--and not hardworking taxpayers who face their own challenges in this economy--are paying for the multi- million dollar bonuses corporations have decided to dole out to their senior executives. We need to prioritize tax breaks that grow our economy and strengthen the middle class, and this bill helps eliminate some of the unfairness in the tax code. I thank Public Citizen, the Institute for Policy Studies, Global Economy Project, Americans for Financial Reform, the AFL-CIO, and MIT Professor Simon Johnson for their support. I also want to thank Senator Blumenthal for working with me on this issue, and I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I come to the floor just the day before Robert Mueller is set to come before the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to focus attention on some of the key findings of the special counsel's report on Russia's interference in our 2016 elections. I have spoken on the floor many times about the depth and breadth of the Russian interference in the 2016 election. The special counsel's report goes to great lengths to detail this, in his terms, ``sweeping and systemic interference.'' What continues to be worrisome is that these information warfare attacks and other malign influence operations are ongoing with more plans for our elections next year. This threat to our national security and the integrity of our democracy has yet to be sufficiently recognized or counted by this administration. Indeed, in the months since the report was released, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have repeatedly claimed that the report vindicates the President on all charges of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and on obstruction of justice rather than taking steps to ensure that we will never be targeted in this way again. The special counsel's testimony is vital so he can detail what he uncovered and shed additional light on the events of the investigation. In particular, what Congress and the American people need to hear from Director Mueller relates to three broad categories of questions. For instance, what was the full scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election? Second, what evidence did the special counsel find of coordination between Trump campaign associates or the President and the Russian Government, and why did he decide the available evidence was not sufficient to prove a criminal conspiracy with Russia? Third, what evidence did the special counsel find that the President obstructed justice? Tomorrow's testimony will help the public understand the gravity of the President's conduct in the White House and the extent to which Russia influenced the 2016 election. These hearings are not the end. This is not case closed. The intelligence community has assessed that the threat from Russia will continue to evolve and grow even more sophisticated. For our elections to remain free, open, and transparent, we must take seriously the threat posed by Russia and other potential foreign adversaries. We must hold hearings in the Senate with testimony from the special counsel's office and key witnesses from the report. We must consider legislation on election security, foreign influence operations, disinformation, Federal election laws, money laundering, and many other issues. When it comes to protecting our democracy, we cannot be complacent. Now is the time for action to make sure we are ready ahead of the elections in 2020 and beyond. Each and every one of us in this Chamber swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In order to do that, we can't just take tweets about no collusion and no obstruction at face value. This isn't a witch hunt, nor should it be an effort to circle the partisan wagons around the President and absolve him of any wrongdoing. It has to be a serious examination of what happened and how to defend our Nation against future attacks. Mr. President, in anticipation of the upcoming testimony of the special counsel before the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, I want to highlight key findings in his report that go to the heart of Russian interference into our elections in 2016 and the ongoing threat still facing our national security and the integrity of our democracy. Indeed many of the President's own national security officials have warned of heightened Russian information warfare attacks and other foreign influence operations in next year's election--which could make its 2016 interference in our elections, catalogued in the Mueller report, look like child's play. Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Wray recently stated that the 2018 midterm elections were seen by Russia as ``a dress rehearsal for the big show in 2020.'' Wray added that the FBI anticipates the 2020 ``threat being even more challenging.'' Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats warned the Senate Intelligence Committee in January 2019 that, in the 2020 election cycle, ``Moscow may employ additional influence toolkits--such as spreading disinformation, conducting hack-and-leak operations, or manipulating data--in a more targeted fashion to influence U.S. policy, actions, and elections.'' Despite this ongoing and increasingly sophisticated threat, we are still not fully prepared to defend against the inevitable Russian attacks on our democracy. The Russian interference in the 2016 election was akin to a military operation against our nation. To date, we do not have a complete understanding of what happened in 2016. More importantly, we do not have a comprehensive strategy, nor have we reorganized our government or prepared the American people, so that such foreign interference will not happen again. The release of the Mueller report cannot mark the end of the strategy to investigate and prevent Russian interference. The special counsel's testimony will add to the urgency for this administration and Congress to change course and act immediately to protect our democracy and strengthen public faith in the American election process. Since the release of the special counsel's report, the President, the Attorney General, and some Republican congressional leaders have said that the case of Russian interference in the 2016 election is closed, that our work is done, and that we can move on. The President has repeatedly claimed that the special counsel's report cleared him of any connections to Russia and any wrongdoing in contradiction of the voluminous evidence laid out in the report. But those declarations of innocence just don't square with the facts. Congress has a constitutional duty to review the findings of the special counsel on behalf of the American people and not simply accept the administration's spin and mischaracterizations of Robert Mueller's findings. Despite the President's declarations of ``hoax'' and ``witch hunt,'' the special counsel's office did bring indictments for ``conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States'' under 18 U.S. Code Sec. 371, against Putin crony Yevgeny Prigozhin, who was in charge of the Kremlin-linked troll operation known as the Internet Research Agency, and against his related holdings and multiple employees. The investigation also resulted in conspiracy indictments of 12 officers from Russian Military Intelligence, also known as the GRU. While the available evidence did not meet the legal standard to charge the President or his associates with a crime for a coordinating role in that conspiracy, the special counsel takes care to note that does not mean that evidence of coordination does not exist. This is not, as the President has attested, ``a complete and total exoneration.'' As the special counsel plainly points out, in regards to coordination with Russia, while ``this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in this report.'' What is more, President Trump and his supporters purposefully leave out important context from the report where the special counsel explains that he lacked the authority to indict a sitting President because of an Office of Legal Counsel, OLC, opinion finding that ``the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions'' in violation of ``the constitutional separation of powers.'' Another critical consideration for the special counsel was that a Federal criminal investigation of a sitting President could preempt the authority vested in Congress by the Constitution to address Presidential misconduct. In addition, Mueller notes that ``a President does not have immunity after he leaves office'' and that ``we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.'' Put together, while the special counsel concluded that he could not prosecute the President, he makes it clear that he is creating a record of evidence and deferring to Congress and future prosecutors should they pursue an obstruction case. Which is all the more reason why we must hear from the special counsel on his findings and his decision-making process. In particular, what Congress and the American people need to hear from Special Counsel Mueller relates to three broad categories of questions. First, what was the nature and extent of the Russian interference campaign launched against the United States in the 2016 election? Second, what evidence did the investigation find of Trump campaign associates or the President coordinating with the Russian campaign, and why did Mueller decide the available evidence was not sufficient to prove ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' that they had criminally conspired with the Russian efforts? And the third set of issues relate to acts of obstruction by Trump campaign associates and the President himself. On the first set of issues, one of the main responsibilities charged to the special counsel by the Department of Justice was to conduct a ``full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.'' As the report concludes, ``the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election principally through two operations.'' First, Mueller provides detailed evidence that Kremlin-linked operators sought to help the Kremlin's preferred candidate, whose election would serve Russia's interests. The report describes how a Kremlin-linked troll operation, called the Internet Research Agency, ``carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.'' It also found that ``[a]s early as 2014, the [Kremlin-linked Internet Research Agency] instructed its employees to target U.S. persons who could be used to advance its operational goals.'' Second, Mueller describes in detail the Russian spying operation to steal ``dirt'' on the opposition candidate and then use that stolen information against her. The report states unequivocally, ``[a] Russian military intelligence's spying operation conducted computer intrusion operations against entities, employees and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents.'' The Mueller report makes clear that the Russian election interference was a coordinated campaign targeting our democracy along multiple lines of effort. While these conclusions affirm the assessments of our intelligence community, the President appears unwilling or unable to take them seriously. At the G20 Summit in Osaka in June 2019, President Trump treated Russian election interference as a joke, signaling to Putin that he would not hold Russia accountable. And in a recent interview, the President failed to grasp what was wrong with taking ``dirt'' on his political opponent from a foreign source and indicated that, if it happened again in the 2020 campaign, he would listen to what they had to say and then decide whether or not to report it to the FBI. Now let me turn to the second set of issues Special Counsel Mueller needs to address, relating to his task by the Department of Justice to investigate ``any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.'' The special counsel's report presents significant evidence that President Trump and his associates embraced, encouraged, and applauded Russian help. The report definitively concludes that Russia saw its interests as aligned with, and served by, a Trump Presidency; that a central purpose of the Russian interference operations was helping the Trump campaign; and that the Trump campaign anticipated benefiting from the fruits of that foreign election interference. Mueller provides detailed evidence of multiple contacts by Russian government officials or their proxies with the Trump campaign to facilitate relationships. The report states: ``[t]he investigation . . . established numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.'' Ultimately, however, the special counsel's investigation lacked sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Trump campaign or its associates conspired with the Russian Government in its election interference. As the report states: ``[a]lthough the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.'' As referenced earlier, a key question that Special Counsel Mueller needs to address during his testimony is why was the investigative team unable to establish to a criminal standard of proof that is ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' coordination between people associated with the Trump campaign, and Russian actors conspiring to undermine the U.S. elections. This raises questions related to the third set of issues for Special Counsel Mueller, namely whether the President obstructed justice in connection with the Russia-related investigation and hindered the ability of the special counsel's office to gather relevant evidence. And if so, did that obstruction materially impede Mueller's ability to conclude ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' that the Trump campaign or the President himself conspired with Russian interference? These questions raise profound issues for our national security and the integrity of our democracy, and the special counsel's answers will determine what Congress's next steps should be in meeting its constitutional responsibilities. Indeed, the Mueller report establishes multiple incidents in which the President committed acts that were capable of impeding the Trump- Russia investigation. For example, President Trump asked then-FBI Director James Comey to stop looking into his former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn, after finding out that Flynn was questioned about his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. President Trump also repeatedly asked Comey to publicly say that Trump himself was not under investigation and then fired Comey when it became clear he was unwilling to do so. In addition, the President tried several different tactics to have the special counsel's investigation curtailed. President Trump initially put forward claims that the special counsel had conflicts of interest, which his advisers informed him were meritless. When that did not work, the President gave his subordinates--including White House Counsel Don McGahn, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski--direct orders to either have the special counsel removed or to pressure then-Attorney General Sessions into limiting the scope of the special counsel's investigation to future election interference, instead of scrutinizing the President and his campaign's conduct. McGahn, Lewandowski, and Priebus all failed to follow the President's orders. The special counsel importantly notes that attempts ``to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.'' Furthermore, the special counsel's report found that the President and his aides materially impaired the investigation. For instance, the President did not give an in-person interview to the special counsel and would only answer written questions that did not address issues relating to Presidential obstruction. In his written responses, the President replied that he could not recall or did not remember more than 30 times, covering the vast majority of the questions. In addition, numerous Trump campaign associates and others from his inner circle, including General Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, and Roger Stone, and his attorney Michael Cohen, lied about their dealings with Kremlin or Kremlin-linked actors. Michael Cohen, for example, admitted to the special counsel that among the reasons he lied to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow project was to try and limit the ongoing Russia investigation. In each of these cases, the Mueller report found ``those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.'' Similarly, the special counsel found that Trump campaign associates frustrated the investigation by deleting information or otherwise impeding the ability of the special counsel to obtain relevant communications pertinent to the investigation. One example was Trump campaign associates' communications with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Ukrainian national whom the FBI assesses as having ties to Russian intelligence and who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's political consulting business for many years. During 2016, Manafort directed his campaign deputy Rick Gates to provide internal polling data to Kilimnik. Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with others in Ukraine and Putin crony Oleg Deripaska, who had funded pro-Kremlin political influence operations in the past. The Mueller report details that Gates used an encrypted app to send the polling data and then deleted it daily. As a result of deleted and encrypted communications and because of Manafort's false statements, the special counsel was not able to determine what happened with this data and whether it was part of a coordinated effort between Russia and the Trump campaign to interfere in our election. The report makes clear that the lying, obfuscations, and denial of access to key information had a direct effect on the investigation's ability to determine the nature and extent of any coordination by President Trump and his associates with Russian conspirators. What makes the Mueller's testimony even more urgent are the Trump administration's efforts to attack the credibility of the report and to prevent Congress from further investigating Mueller's findings. The White House has adopted a strategy of trying to block key witnesses named in the Mueller report from testifying before Congress, including Don McGahn, Annie Donaldson who served as chief of staff to White Counsel McGahn, and White House and Trump campaign communications director Hope Hicks, by invoking legally dubious or overly broad claims of privilege. The White House has also stymied Congress by asserting Executive privilege over the full, unredacted version of the report and the underlying documents and only providing access to a few select Members. It is not only the White House that has been trying to muddy the waters around the Mueller report. Attorney General William Barr has deliberately mischaracterized and increased partisan skepticism of the report. Before releasing the report to the public, Barr published a misleading summary of its findings, which the special counsel disputed. Barr also held a press conference where he claimed that the White House fully cooperated with the special counsel's investigation, that the special counsel found ``no collusion,'' and that there was not sufficient evidence to establish obstruction of justice. These statements are favorable to the President, but none of them are consistent with the special counsel's findings. As I have laid out, despite the ongoing and increasingly sophisticated threat we face and despite the 2020 election being less than a year and a half away, we are still not prepared to defend against the inevitable Russian attack on our democracy. As Mueller said during his press conference on May 29, 2019, ``I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments--that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interference in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.'' I could not agree more. We cannot forget that Russia interfered in our election in 2016 with hybrid warfare tactics and tried to do it again in 2018. And our intelligence community assessed that it is poised to conduct additional operations against our elections in 2020 with increasing sophistication. We cannot ignore these attacks or wish them away. The impediments erected by the President and the people around him meant that despite the best efforts of the Mueller team, there remains unfinished business in getting to the bottom of what happened in 2016 and afterward, which is why it is critically important we hear from the special counsel. While it is an important step that the special counsel is testifying to the House in front of two committees, I am making this statement about the questions that should be asked of Mueller because, as of this moment, there are no scheduled hearings or plan for him to appear in the Senate. We should be holding hearings in the Senate with testimony from the special counsel and others on many issues, including the ones I have raised. We should be passing legislation, including on election security, to ensure that we are appropriately reorganized across government and society ahead of the elections in 2020 and beyond. Indeed, the administration needs to take election security seriously. That means being proactive. It also means finding ways to reassure the American people about the legitimacy and validity of our elections. For example, we could require the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the concurrence of the Director of National Intelligence and the FBI Director, to rapidly assess and inform the public about whether any foreign interference or influence is detected against our election process, procedures, and infrastructure. As Former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul wrote in the Washington Post after the special counsel's report was released: ``the Mueller report is a good start, but it is only a start.'' There is too much at stake for our national security and the integrity of democracy to stop now. Nomination of Mark T. Esper Mr. President, I had the opportunity and the privilege, as we all did earlier today, to vote for Secretary Mark Esper as the next Secretary of Defense. I have known Dr. Esper for more than a decade. He is a public servant and a patriot of the first order. I think the overwhelming vote today indicates the confidence we have in him, and it indicates the importance we understand that job holds for all of us. We have entrusted it to someone who began his dedicated service to the country as an 18-year-old at West Point, served in the Army, then went on to serve in administrations and as a public-spirited citizen through his entire life. Mr. President, I rise to state my support for the nomination of Dr. Mark Esper, who was confirmed earlier today to be the 27th Secretary of Defense. Dr. Esper has served this Nation in a variety of roles most of his life. He is a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy. He served in the 101st Airborne Division and participated in the 1990-91 Gulf War with the ``Screaming Eagles.'' He retired from the U.S. Army in 2007, after spending 10 years on Active Duty and 11 years in the National Guard and Army Reserve. After the Army, Dr. Esper worked in the private sector, but he also worked in several offices on Capitol Hill, including the offices of Senator and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. He also was a professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations and Senate Government Affairs committees and the House Armed Services Committee. Until his nomination to be Secretary of Defense, Dr. Esper was serving as the 23rd Secretary of the Army. His wealth of experience in defense policy and in senior leadership positions in both the public and private sector should serve him well as Secretary of Defense. It has been nearly 7 months since the Department has had a Senate- confirmed Secretary of Defense. At no other time in history has the office of the Secretary remained vacant for so long. In addition, we must bear in mind the national security challenges facing our country. Currently, the Department is focused on competition with near-peer adversaries like China and Russia. As the Department pursues the new strategic direction established by the National Defense Strategy, Iran and North Korea remain dangerous, and the threat posed by violent extremist organizations is not diminishing. Furthermore, the Department must continue to recruit and retain high-caliber individuals, while restoring readiness, and pursuing new high-end capabilities for the force. Despite these daunting challenges, the number of senior-level civilian vacancies throughout the Department is staggering. The constant turnover of senior civilian leadership, coupled with the duration of these vacancies, has been troubling. I believe it has had a significant impact on the Defense Department, which is adrift in a way I have not seen in my time on Capitol Hill. It is my hope that Dr. Esper will work to fill these civilian leadership positions because it is necessary to manage the difficult challenges facing the Department, as well as the extensive Pentagon bureaucracy. In addition, Dr. Esper will help oversee national security policy for a President whose temperament and management skills are challenging. It is extremely important for our Nation that he be surrounded by leaders who can provide thoughtful advice and counsel. Diversity of opinion is important when crafting policy and making decisions that impact the well-being of our men and women in uniform. It is my fervent hope that Dr. Esper will be willing and able to provide the President with his best policy advice even if the President disagrees with the counsel or it runs contrary to his policy goals. But most importantly, while the Secretary of Defense serves at the pleasure of the President, we should never forget that they also oversee the finest fighting force in the world, men and women who have volunteered to serve a cause greater than themselves. Our servicemembers and their families should always be at the forefront when considering defense policy or military action. On a final note, I would also like to thank Dr. Esper's family, his wife Leah and their children, Luke, John, and Kate. They, too, will be serving our country, and we appreciate their support. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the State Flood Mitigation Revolving Fund Act of 2019 along with Senators Kennedy and Menendez. The purpose of our bill is to reduce flood risk and the costs associated with flooding by establishing a State revolving loan program to fund mitigation projects for property owners and communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. By funding projects that reduce risk, such as home elevations, flood proofing, acquisitions, and environmental restoration, the bill also provides an avenue to help middle-income and low-income property owners reduce their flood insurance premiums. It is a proposal that has been endorsed by over 200 local and national organizations, including the Pew Charitable Trusts, Association of State Floodplain Managers, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, the Property Casualty Insurance Association of America, the Nature Conservancy, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the U.S. Resiliency Council, and others. Flooding is the most costly hazard facing American property owners. With increasing frequency we see news stories of catastrophic flooding in communities across the Nation. According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, seven out of ten Presidential Disaster Declarations in the last ten years have involved flooding, and data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that there were 27 flooding disasters or hurricanes in the last decade that each caused more than $1 billion in damage. But the increase in major flooding disasters has also been accompanied by increases in nuisance, urban, and high tide flooding events, which don't trigger the full complement of Federal disaster assistance but are devastating to every homeowner and community that is affected. Experts agree that the best way to reduce the cost of flooding is to engage in proactive, not reactive, flood mitigation. The National Institute of Building Sciences' 2018 Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves study found that every Federal dollar spent on up-front mitigation provides $6 in national benefits, and investments in flood mitigation yield $7 in benefits per dollar spent. This is the kind of saving the State Flood Mitigation Revolving Fund Act seeks to promote and leverage. Modeled on the successful Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, this bill creates a straightforward and easily accessible program through which States can offer low-interest loans to property owners and communities who want to mitigate their flood risk. By creating a revolving fund, the bill will allow States to design and more efficiently implement their own flood mitigation strategies provided that such strategies help achieve Federal objectives such as reducing disaster payments. Within this construct, the bill gives States the flexibility to undertake flood mitigation projects expeditiously. The bill requires States to provide matching funds and gives them the ability to further leverage Federal dollars, as many already do under the drinking water and clean water SRF programs. Additionally, the bill ensures mitigation assistance is focused on where the flood risk is greatest and where people are most vulnerable. The bill requires states to prioritize mitigation assistance for low- income homeowners and geographic areas, pre-FIRM buildings, and severe repetitive loss and repetitive loss buildings. Finally, it gives states the option of providing additional subsidization for low-income property-owners and communities that simply do not have the wherewithal to assume additional debt. Mr. President, as we talk about appropriate investments in infrastructure, mitigation is one place where we should be investing. I invite the rest of our colleagues to join me, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Menendez in supporting this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the State Flood Mitigation Revolving Fund Act of 2019 along with Senators Kennedy and Menendez. The purpose of our bill is to reduce flood risk and the costs associated with flooding by establishing a State revolving loan program to fund mitigation projects for property owners and communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. By funding projects that reduce risk, such as home elevations, flood proofing, acquisitions, and environmental restoration, the bill also provides an avenue to help middle-income and low-income property owners reduce their flood insurance premiums. It is a proposal that has been endorsed by over 200 local and national organizations, including the Pew Charitable Trusts, Association of State Floodplain Managers, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, the Property Casualty Insurance Association of America, the Nature Conservancy, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the U.S. Resiliency Council, and others. Flooding is the most costly hazard facing American property owners. With increasing frequency we see news stories of catastrophic flooding in communities across the Nation. According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, seven out of ten Presidential Disaster Declarations in the last ten years have involved flooding, and data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that there were 27 flooding disasters or hurricanes in the last decade that each caused more than $1 billion in damage. But the increase in major flooding disasters has also been accompanied by increases in nuisance, urban, and high tide flooding events, which don't trigger the full complement of Federal disaster assistance but are devastating to every homeowner and community that is affected. Experts agree that the best way to reduce the cost of flooding is to engage in proactive, not reactive, flood mitigation. The National Institute of Building Sciences' 2018 Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves study found that every Federal dollar spent on up-front mitigation provides $6 in national benefits, and investments in flood mitigation yield $7 in benefits per dollar spent. This is the kind of saving the State Flood Mitigation Revolving Fund Act seeks to promote and leverage. Modeled on the successful Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, this bill creates a straightforward and easily accessible program through which States can offer low-interest loans to property owners and communities who want to mitigate their flood risk. By creating a revolving fund, the bill will allow States to design and more efficiently implement their own flood mitigation strategies provided that such strategies help achieve Federal objectives such as reducing disaster payments. Within this construct, the bill gives States the flexibility to undertake flood mitigation projects expeditiously. The bill requires States to provide matching funds and gives them the ability to further leverage Federal dollars, as many already do under the drinking water and clean water SRF programs. Additionally, the bill ensures mitigation assistance is focused on where the flood risk is greatest and where people are most vulnerable. The bill requires states to prioritize mitigation assistance for low- income homeowners and geographic areas, pre-FIRM buildings, and severe repetitive loss and repetitive loss buildings. Finally, it gives states the option of providing additional subsidization for low-income property-owners and communities that simply do not have the wherewithal to assume additional debt. Mr. President, as we talk about appropriate investments in infrastructure, mitigation is one place where we should be investing. I invite the rest of our colleagues to join me, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Menendez in supporting this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today to salute a hometown hero, a dedicated journalist, and a trusted newsman, Jim Taricani, who sadly passed away last month after decades of contributions to Rhode Island and the field of journalism throughout this country. This is just an example of the tributes that he won by a very, very enthusiastic population of Rhode Island. This is the front page of the Providence Journal on the day of his funeral service. He was a gentleman. He was a man of integrity, a man of fairness--the qualities that define a great journalist. In fact, the words ``great journalist'' and ``Jim Taricani'' are synonymous. He leaves behind an extraordinary legacy. He was an award-winning investigative journalist who earned multiple Emmys and the coveted Edward R. Murrow Award, and he was a true champion of the First Amendment. Jim grew up in Connecticut and served the U.S. Air Force, where he was stationed in Europe as a military police officer. But he made his mark when he moved to Rhode Island and embarked on a career in broadcast journalism, first in radio, and then over a 30-year career at WJAR that spanned from the late 1970s through 2014. Jim began his stint for NBC 10--WJAR--as a general assignment reporter but gained notoriety for covering big stories and uncovering the truth. He went on to found the station's investigative team in 1979. He earned a reputation for taking on tough stories about organized crime and political corruption. In reporting on these difficult topics, Jim's own integrity, selflessness, and fairness shone through every day and every moment. Indeed, Jim didn't just talk about principles; he lived them. In February 2001, Jim obtained an FBI surveillance video from a confidential source. It showed a public employee accepting a bribe in the famed Operation Plunder Dome case, which transfixed Rhode Island and Providence, its capital, for many, many months. It marked a significant moment when people could see and hear what corruption looked like. Rather than following a court order to reveal the source of the tape, Jim stood up for the First Amendment, and he was sentenced to 6 months of home confinement. Several of Jim's friends and colleagues wrote letters to the judge on Jim's behalf, including Christiane Amanpour, who interned for Jim in the early 1980s, when she was a student at URI. She noted that Jim Taricani taught her ``that journalism when done right is a noble profession, that America's unique commitment to freedom of the press is vital to a functioning democracy, [and] that holding public officials to account is the imperative of a corruption- free society.'' Indeed, that is what Jim set out to do through his reporting. He became a strong advocate for other journalists, testifying before Congress about freedom of the press and the challenges journalists face in trying to keep the public informed about their government. His help, his actions, and his activity spurred action. The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Senator Schumer's bipartisan media shield bill. But the work to protect journalists, and to ensure that they can responsibly do their job and inform the public, continues. We must find a bipartisan way forward that balances freedom of the press and public safety. Jim was also a tremendous advocate for the American Heart Association. A survivor of cardiovascular disease and multiple heart attacks, Jim documented his own process of undergoing a heart transplant, from uncertainty to recovery. Here is how the Providence Journal's television critic described it: Listed--the title refers to the word from doctors that every heart transplant candidate longs to hear--is the most powerful human interest story I have ever seen on local television. It is courageous first-person journalism, a story that you may never forget. Taricani, who kept a diary throughout his hospital stay, wanted to have his experience videotaped in order to produce a donor awareness video for the American Heart Association. It was never his intention to broadcast the account, but when the news director, Dan Salamone, suggested it would reach a broader audience if televised, Taricani agreed. That was Jim. He was not looking to be the story but was willing to share his story if it could help others. Thoughtful, tenacious, and tough--that was Jim Taricani. By the way, 32 days after receiving his new heart, Jim was back at work, which tells you everything you need to know about how passionate he was about journalism and how much he loved his job. Undoubtedly, the love of his life was his wife, Laurie White, who is a force in her own right and has taken up Jim's cause of freedom of the press and encouraging the next generation of aspiring young journalists to go out and make a difference. She has endowed a lecture series on First Amendment rights at the University of Rhode Island in Jim's honor, which is a fitting tribute. She said: Journalists bring sunlight to the stories that otherwise may stay hidden in the shadows. It is my hope that this lecture series will continue his legacy of inspiring the next generation of ethical and responsible journalists. I expect the series will help increase public understanding of the importance of a free press and the First Amendment for decades to come. As a journalist and as a person, nothing stopped Jim from following the facts, uncovering the truth, sharing important stories, and enlightening his audience. We are all, in Rhode Island and across the country, deeply saddened by the loss of Jim Taricani, but his example and legacy endure. That legacy will sustain us and inspire us to continue working together to build a just and decent country, and for that we are all grateful to Jim. Madam President, I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I want to discuss Russia's sustained campaign of attacks on our democracy and how the President's inability to take these threats seriously harms our national security and the integrity of our elections. In the run up to his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin this week at the G20 Summit, the President showed no signs that he planned to warn Russia against interfering in our democratic elections in 2020. In press interviews, he said that he ``may'' ask Putin not interfere in 2020 and told another group of reporters, ``I will have a very good conversation with him . . . what I say is none of your business.'' Following today's meeting with Putin, an autocrat who continues to conduct hybrid warfare operations against our democracy, President Trump made light of this threat in a joking manner. In response to a reporter's question, he apparently grinned as he told Putin, ``don't meddle in our election.'' This is not a joke. This is about deterring the Kremlin from continuing to attack our democracy. He should be using every tool at his disposal to direct a whole of government and whole of society effort to counter these attacks, not emboldening Putin to escalate his aggression. It is exactly the business of the American people to know that our elections are free from interference and that we can trust the President of the United States to deliver tough messages to deter foreign adversaries. Relatedly the President can't seem to grasp what's wrong with accepting ``dirt'' on his political opponents from foreign adversaries. In a recent interview with ABC News, the President made it clear that he sees nothing wrong with compromising our national security if it advances his own political interests. When asked if his campaign would accept information on his opponents from Russia, China, or other countries during the 2020 campaign, the President responded: ``I think you might want to listen . . . there's nothing wrong with listening.'' He denied that this type of assistance from a foreign adversary was interference, adding: ``They have information. I think I'd take it.'' It was only after being heavily criticized that President Trump reversed course, telling Fox and Friends ``Of course, you give it to the FBI or report it to the attorney general or somebody like that . . . You couldn't have that happen in our country.'' But, of course, it already happened. President Trump's inability or unwillingness to recognize it is both completely wrong-headed and dangerous. The President's response belies the undeniable fact that Russia attacked our democracy in the 2016 election with an information warfare campaign, and tried to do it again in the 2018 midterms. Trump initially made Russia's interference sound like run of the mill, opposition research--``oppo research'' he called it--and claimed everyone does it, but this is not about politics as usual. This is about Russia advancing its strategic interests and using tools from its hybrid arsenal, including information warfare and malign influence operation, to do so. Russia seeks to inject itself into our political process to achieve its goals of promoting the candidates favorable to Russia and discrediting those that are not, weakening the American public's faith in the integrity of democracy, and undermining the United States' standing globally. President Trump's failure to grasp that there is a problem with someone in his high office--or any candidate for public office for that matter--accepting dirt on political opponents from a foreign government or national is troubling on many levels, but importantly, it harms our national security. It undermines our ability as a nation to counter Russia and other adversaries and our ability to protect our elections. The President should be leading a comprehensive, meaningful approach to deter Russia and others who seek to target our democracy. Instead, he is announcing to the world that our elections are open to manipulation. Some would have you believe that, with the release of the Mueller report, the case of Russian interference in the 2016 election is closed, that our work is done, and that Congress can stop caring about the attack on our democracy and the integrity of our political system. The White House, the Attorney General, and congressional Republican leaders are sending a coordinated message that there is nothing to see here, folks. But no matter how they try, we can't forget that Russia attacked our democracy in 2016, that Russia tried to do it again in 2018, and that it continues to deploy hybrid operations against us, our allies, and our partners. Just recently, a report issued by the European Union concluded that Russia conducted ``continued and sustained'' information warfare campaigns against the EU Parliamentary elections this spring. We must continue to work to highlight these types of findings including those made by the special counsel and their implications going forward. As Special Counsel Mueller's powerful press statement from his investigation underscored: ``there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.'' Mueller added, ``And that allegation deserves the attention of every American.'' The special counsel' s report and related indictments described these operations in great detail. Let's look specifically at key aspects of the Russian information warfare campaign that the report laid out. First, Mueller makes clear that Kremlin-linked operators sought to help the candidate the Kremlin favored and whose election would serve Russia's interests. The report describes how ``A Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.'' It also found that ``[a]s early as 2014, the [Kremlin-linked Internet Research Agency] instructed its employees to target U.S. persons who could be used to advance its operational goals.'' Second, Mueller describes in detail the Russian spying operation to steal ``dirt'' on the opposition candidate and then use that stolen information against her. The report states unequivocally, ``[a] Russian intelligence service conducted computer intrusion operations against entities, employees and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents.'' Third, the Mueller established multiple contacts by Russian Government officials or their proxies with the Trump campaign to establish relationships. The report states: ``[t]he investigation also established numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.'' Finally, the Mueller report definitively concludes that Russia saw its interests as aligned with and served by a Trump Presidency, that Russia conducted a campaign to interfere in the 2016 election for the purpose of helping the Trump campaign, and that the Trump campaign hoped to benefit from the fruits of that foreign election interference. Ultimately, however, the Mueller investigation could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Trump campaign or its associates conspired with the Russian Government in its election interference. As the report states: ``[a]lthough the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.'' As the special counsel's report details, Trump did not shy away and, in fact, sought to benefit from help from Russia in the 2016 election. Trump campaign associates, including his son, son-in law, and campaign manager, met with Russian agents to hear potential dirt about Secretary Clinton, which was presented to the Donald Trump, Jr. as ``part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump.'' Even in hindsight, Trump said he most likely wouldn't have contacted the FBI about that meeting, telling ABC News, ``I have seen a lot of things over my life. I don't think in my whole life I've ever called the FBI. In my whole life. You don't call the FBI.'' Think about that statement for a moment. Here is the President of the United States, who has taken an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, declaring that people should not go to law enforcement with evidence of foreign interference in our political process. But, of course, candidate Trump went further than simply not reporting foreign attempts to influence our elections. The special counsel detailed how Trump embraced the support of a foreign adversary by calling on Russia to hack his political opponent and disseminate the stolen information. On July 27, 2016, Trump announced publicly during a press conference, ``Russia, if you are listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will be rewarded mightily by our press.'' The Mueller report confirmed that a Russian military intelligence unit, commonly referred to as the GRU, tried to assist Trump with those efforts, finding, ``within approximately five hours of Trump's statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton's personal office.'' The special counsel also detailed how the Trump campaign ``showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton.'' Furthermore, the Trump campaign continued to promote WikiLeaks after it was apparent that WikiLeaks was being used by the GRU to disseminate information stolen by the Russians. On October 7, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement naming the WikiLeaks disclosures as ``consistent with the Russian-directed efforts'' to influence public opinion. If not prior to the release of that joint statement, certainly by that point the President and his campaign should have known better. Instead of calling the FBI, the Trump campaign strategized how to benefit from Russia's stolen information. The Mueller report states: ``by the late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks.'' A related indictment from the special counsel detailed how the Trump campaign applauded WikiLeaks's release of John Podesta's emails starting on October 7, 2016. In the last month of the campaign alone, the President publicly boasted of his love of WikiLeaks at least 124 times. As I mentioned, the special counsel did not find sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Trump campaign's embracing of the benefits of Kremlin or Kremlin-linked operations constituted a crime. But is it okay for a candidate to get elected President, or elected to any public office, by capitalizing on information stolen by a foreign adversary? Will that be acceptable the next time around? Will foreign information warfare campaigns targeting our elections be accepted as normal from now on? Based on his public remarks, it certainly seems acceptable to President Trump and his defenders. This is not theoretical. It happened in 2016. Now the President put it out there that he would meet with foreign adversaries again in the 2020 campaign to hear what information they have on his opponents. He is emboldened to do it again. While, as I mentioned, he later changed his position, it still leaves room for doubt about his true intentions and invites our adversaries to try and compromise our election. Trump publicly undermined his own FBI Director, Christopher Wray, who testified in front of the Senate that, ``If any public official or member of any campaign is contacted by any nation-state or anybody acting on behalf of a nation-state about influencing or interfering with our election, then that's something that the FBI would want to know about it.'' When asked about Wray's testimony, President Trump bluntly said ``The FBI Director is wrong.'' Trump's statements were so disturbing that the FEC Commissioner responded by saying ``Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept.'' The President's actions also clearly aided ongoing Russian information warfare operations. This is not the standard of conduct and the public trust that goes with political office. The willingness to embrace a foreign adversary in this fashion is unpatriotic and defies the basic norms of this Nation. The Trump campaign's series of foreign contacts in the 2016 election and the President's continued willingness to accept assistance from a foreign government make it clear that Congress must act to prevent future interference efforts. That is why I am a cosponsor of the Foreign Influence Reporting in Elections Act, or FIRE Act, introduced by Senator Warner. The FIRE Act would require all campaign officials to report, within 1 week, any contacts with foreign nationals attempting to make campaign donations or otherwise collaborate with the campaign to the Federal Election Commission. The FEC would in turn have to notify the FBI within 1 week. It is in all our interest to ensure that we can defend against foreign attacks on our democratic institutions and reporting these kinds of contacts to the appropriate authorities is our first line of defense. I am disappointed that my Republican colleagues blocked Senator Warner's attempt to pass the FIRE Act, even after many of them insisted that politicians should contact the FBI if ever contacted or offered help by a foreign government. This is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. This is an issue of our national security and the integrity of our free and fair elections. Russia exploited vulnerabilities in our open society to advance its own interests and the Russian tactics were encouraged and amplified by a candidate who was seeking our nation's highest office. We have every indication that the Russians are poised to do it again, and the President has shown time and again--including today for the world to see--that he doesn't see anything wrong with foreign interference if it works to his advantage. We cannot let this moment pass without speaking up for the integrity of our democracy and our values. Congress, as a body, and we, as a country, must speak out and say this is not acceptable. It is not acceptable for our candidates for political office to seek to engage with our adversaries or foreign authoritarian regimes to advance their political campaigns. It is not acceptable to meet with foreign agents about getting stolen information on your opponents, information acquired by foreign espionage. This is a violation of the public trust that is inherent in any political office and which any candidate for public office must uphold to be worthy of the American people's support. I urge my colleagues to speak out in condemning this conduct for the sake of our democracy and to preserve the American people's faith in the integrity of our electoral system.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, veterans who have become disabled during their service to our Nation should have their student loans forgiven without delay, without cumbersome red tape. Unfortunately, that is not the case today, which is why I am introducing legislation with my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, to require the Department of Education to automatically discharge student loans for veterans who are totally and permanently disabled. In the fall of 2018, the Department of Education and the Department of Veterans Affairs announced a data-matching program under which the Department of Veterans Affairs would disclose data to the Department of Education concerning veterans who are determined to be 100 percent disabled or individually unemployable. The Department of Education would then alert eligible veterans with Federal student loans of the opportunity to apply for debt relief. This initiative was an important step forward in improving the process for disabled veterans, but it did not go far enough. Too many eligible veterans are still saddled with student loans that they cannot repay. This spring, in response to hearing questions, the Department of Education reported that of the over 40,000 veterans who were identified as eligible for loan forgiveness through the matching program, fewer than half submitted the required paperwork and, as a result, have not had their loans forgiven. Many of these individuals are currently in default on their loans, which has dire financial repercussions for them and their families. We can and must do better. As many Members of Congress have urged, along with veterans' service organizations, and 51 bipartisan State attorneys general, we should automatically discharge the loans for eligible veteran student loan borrowers identified through the matching program. Previously, concern about potential tax liability was identified as a reason for not moving forward on automatic discharge of these loans. However, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 removed the Federal tax liability, and we should now move forward without delay to automatically forgive these loans. Our legislation requires the Departments of Education and Veterans Affairs to conduct a computer matching at least twice per year of individuals with student loans who have received a rating of total disability or who have been determined to be unemployable. It also requires the Departments to work together to address minor discrepancies in the data to ensure that no veteran falls through the cracks due to a clerical error. Finally, it requires the Department of Education to automatically discharge student loans for individuals identified as eligible through the matching program, unless the borrower opts out because the Department has identified a potential State tax liability. We are proud to have the support of many veterans' organizations for this legislation, including High Ground Advocacy, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Student Veterans of America, The Retired Enlisted Association, Veterans Education Success, and U.S. Army Warrant Officers Association. I urge all my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation and pushing for its swift passage. Veterans who have served our nation and are now unable to work because of a service-connected disability should not have to worry about student loan payments.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, veterans who have become disabled during their service to our Nation should have their student loans forgiven without delay, without cumbersome red tape. Unfortunately, that is not the case today, which is why I am introducing legislation with my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, to require the Department of Education to automatically discharge student loans for veterans who are totally and permanently disabled. In the fall of 2018, the Department of Education and the Department of Veterans Affairs announced a data-matching program under which the Department of Veterans Affairs would disclose data to the Department of Education concerning veterans who are determined to be 100 percent disabled or individually unemployable. The Department of Education would then alert eligible veterans with Federal student loans of the opportunity to apply for debt relief. This initiative was an important step forward in improving the process for disabled veterans, but it did not go far enough. Too many eligible veterans are still saddled with student loans that they cannot repay. This spring, in response to hearing questions, the Department of Education reported that of the over 40,000 veterans who were identified as eligible for loan forgiveness through the matching program, fewer than half submitted the required paperwork and, as a result, have not had their loans forgiven. Many of these individuals are currently in default on their loans, which has dire financial repercussions for them and their families. We can and must do better. As many Members of Congress have urged, along with veterans' service organizations, and 51 bipartisan State attorneys general, we should automatically discharge the loans for eligible veteran student loan borrowers identified through the matching program. Previously, concern about potential tax liability was identified as a reason for not moving forward on automatic discharge of these loans. However, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 removed the Federal tax liability, and we should now move forward without delay to automatically forgive these loans. Our legislation requires the Departments of Education and Veterans Affairs to conduct a computer matching at least twice per year of individuals with student loans who have received a rating of total disability or who have been determined to be unemployable. It also requires the Departments to work together to address minor discrepancies in the data to ensure that no veteran falls through the cracks due to a clerical error. Finally, it requires the Department of Education to automatically discharge student loans for individuals identified as eligible through the matching program, unless the borrower opts out because the Department has identified a potential State tax liability. We are proud to have the support of many veterans' organizations for this legislation, including High Ground Advocacy, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Student Veterans of America, The Retired Enlisted Association, Veterans Education Success, and U.S. Army Warrant Officers Association. I urge all my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation and pushing for its swift passage. Veterans who have served our nation and are now unable to work because of a service-connected disability should not have to worry about student loan payments.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to join Chairman Inhofe in support of the fiscal year 2020 Defense authorization bill. I thank the chairman for his great bipartisan leadership, thoughtful, sensible, and delivering what I think is an excellent piece of legislation. It was based on thorough hearings, discussions, and debate on both sides of the aisle, and it came out of the committee with strong bipartisan support. I hope it enjoys that support on final passage. As the chairman indicated, the bill provides for many different aspects that are necessary to our national defense. It provides a pay raise for the men and women of our Armed Forces who do so much for us. It includes over 30 provisions to address the privatized military housing crisis. It authorizes military construction in almost every State in this country. It provides funding and authorities for our military personnel on the frontlines and for those who are back in the United States building the ships and the tanks and advancing the technologies we need for the future fight. This bill also contains numerous amendments from many of my colleagues, again, on both sides of the aisle, on other issues of great importance, such as the Intelligence Authorization Act, the authorization of the Maritime Administration, and provisions addressing the fentanyl crisis and the dangers of PFOS-PFAS in our water. There are numerous provisions here that go beyond the narrow definition of the defense establishment. They are bipartisan, and they are strongly supported by both sides of the aisle. Again, let me thank Senator Inhofe for his leadership. It made a great difference in terms of his approach to this important legislation. Finally, I would like to thank the committee staff. Particularly, I would like to thank the majority staff and their staff director, John Bonsell. He did a superb job--they did. ``Diligence,'' ``professionalism,'' and ``bipartisanship'' were the watchwords of their efforts. I thank them for that. Let me thank my staff. In particular, Jody Bennett, Carolyn Chuhta, Jon Clark, Jonathan Epstein, Jorie Feldman, Creighton Greene, Ozge Guzelsu, Gary Leeling, Kirk McConnell, Maggie McNamara, Bill Monahan, Mike Noblet, John Quirk, Arun Seraphin, Fiona Tomlin, and my staff director, Elizabeth King, who, with John Bonsell, did a superb job. Let me thank the floor staff who have helped us over the last few days immensely. I urge all of my colleagues to join the chairman and me in supporting this excellent legislation. I yield the floor. Vote on Amendment No. 764

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the escalating tensions between the United States and Iran, my concern about the administration's current approach--a path that I am worried will lead us to war--and my support for the Udall amendment to the NDAA, which will be voted on tomorrow. I believe that diplomatic efforts, in concert with our international partners, should be pursued immediately to avoid another unnecessary armed conflict in the Middle East. Let me be clear. Iran is a dangerous and destabilizing force in the region. It supports terrorist proxies and meddles in the internal affairs of other states. Iran continues to pursue ballistic missile capabilities in violation of international norms and abuses the rights of its own people. Unfortunately, the administration's chosen course of action with respect to Iran has isolated the United States from the international community and made it more difficult to collectively address these issues. The administration's actions and rhetoric related to Iran have created a credibility deficit. This is a fast-changing and dangerous situation, and it is clear that there is not a consensus within the international community with respect to Iran's plans and intentions. Given these disconnects, it is imperative for the administration to provide Congress with current, unvarnished intelligence so that we may reach substantiated conclusions. Taking a step back, it is important to recount the actions that have precipitated the current state of affairs. Current tensions are an entirely predictable outcome of the administration's ill-conceived approach to Iran. Despite then-Candidate Trump's campaign rhetoric, I and others hoped that he would heed the advice of the advisers with respect to the Iran nuclear agreement, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the JCPOA. For example, despite personal concerns about the JCPOA before it was signed, former Secretary of Defense Mattis told the Armed Services Committee at his confirmation hearing that ``when America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.'' In October 2017, Secretary Mattis told the Armed Services Committee that he believed it was in our national interest to remain in the JCPOA. General Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed these sentiments at the time and cautioned that, in his words, ``the U.S. will incur damage vis-a-vis our allies if we unilaterally withdraw from the JCPOA. Our allies will be less likely to cooperate with us on future military action to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and less likely to cooperate with us on countering other destabilizing aspects of Iranian behavior that threaten our collective interests.'' The administration should have sought to work with the international community to address the challenges posed by Iran by building upon the foundation of the JCPOA rather than squandering that opportunity in favor of ``putting Iran on notice'' and other inflammatory rhetoric. Just over a year ago, President Trump made the disastrous decision to unilaterally withdraw the United States from the JCPOA and reimpose nuclear-related sanctions, in violation of previous U.S. commitments under the deal. Since withdrawing from the deal, the Trump administration has taken a series of additional escalatory actions, including the imposition of new sanctions on various aspects of the Iranian economy; cancellation of waivers that previously allowed importation of Iranian oil by China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey; and the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps-- often referred to as the IRGC--as a foreign terrorist organization. The designation of a foreign government entity as a foreign terrorist organization was unprecedented, and it is not clear what purpose it served other than to unnecessarily raise tensions with Iran. As I learned during a recent visit to Iraq and Afghanistan, the IRGC designation has significantly complicated our relationships with foreign partners who described the action as provocative and destabilizing. While the JCPOA was not a perfect deal, it was a necessary deal. It is important to remember that when the JCPOA was signed, Iran's ``breakout'' timeline--the amount of time Iran would need to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon--was only 2 to 3 months. Even by the most conservative estimates, the JCPOA stretched that timeline to more than a year. By all accounts, the JCPOA has worked as intended. The JCPOA commits Iran to never seeking to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon and effectively cuts off all pathways for Iran to achieve a nuclear weapon until at least 2030. The agreement dramatically reduced Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium and the number of installed centrifuges. It also prevented Iran from producing weapons-grade plutonium and has subjected Iran to the most intrusive monitoring regime in the world to ensure it is living up to its commitments. The JCPOA was appropriately built upon the concept of ``distrust and verify,'' and I support efforts by our European partners, as well as Russia and China, to preserve the JCPOA despite challenges the Trump administration has put in their way. According to General Dunford, in the absence of the JCPOA, Iran would likely resume its nuclear weapons program, and, in his words, ``a nuclear-armed Iran would likely be more aggressive in its actions and more dangerous in its consequences.'' Unfortunately, the administration's withdrawal from the agreement and reimposition of sanctions has left us isolated from our allies and partners while emboldening the hardliners in Iran. In May of last year, subsequent to the decision to withdraw from the JCPOA, Secretary of State Pompeo articulated a set of 12 ``demands'' and indicated that ``major changes'' would need to be made by Iran before sanctions relief would be provided. The administration has sent mixed messages on whether its demands should be viewed as a set of preconditions for discussions on sanctions relief. The demands outlined by Secretary Pompeo are widely viewed as maximalist and leave little room for negotiation, especially given that the administration has already reneged on previous diplomatic commitments related to Iran's nuclear program. Without greater certainty by the administration on what specific actions would need to be taken by Iran to relieve U.S. economic pressure, I fear that Iran has little incentive to engage in negotiations. Indeed, the administration has followed that initial set of 12 demands with a succession of orchestrated steps to force Iran into an ever-smaller corner that only serves to increase the odds of miscalculation and reduce diplomatic opportunities. The economic sanctions by the United States have left the Iranian economy reeling, with its gross domestic product shrinking by 5 percent and the inflation rate rising by 50 percent. As part of this so-called ``Maximum Pressure'' campaign, the administration has just announced personal sanctions against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other Iranian leadership. The Iranians have responded by indicating that these sanctions mean ``the permanent closure of the doors of diplomacy.'' Rather than modifying its behavior, Iran has responded to these demands and subsequent escalatory actions by increasing its malign activities in the region, including in Yemen and Syria, and announcing that it would stop complying with certain aspects of the JCPOA. If Iran follows through on threats to completely withdraw from the JCPOA and resume nuclear weapons development activities, the United States and the international community will be in a much less unified and therefore weaker negotiating position than we had leading up to the JCPOA. As I assess the current state of affairs, I see four potential outcomes of the current approach being pursued by the administration. First, Iran could bend to the will of the administration and announce its compliance with the so-called 12 demands laid out by Secretary Pompeo. However, Iran has a long history of struggle against outside forces. A notable example is the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Additionally, Iranian capitulation would likely threaten its top priority of regime survival, so clearly this is an unrealistic outcome. Second, Iran could remain in the JCPOA despite seeing little of the economic benefits promised by the deal and hope that a future U.S. administration would return to the agreement. Iran's recent announcement that it would stop complying with aspects of the JCPOA is a signal that it views the current arrangement as unsustainable and is willing to abandon the JCPOA completely if its economic situation does not improve in the near term. Third, Iran could agree to return to the negotiating table, seeking a reduction in tensions and easing of sanctions. However, both the administration and Iranian leaders have made clear that they are not interested in such an approach. In announcing the administration's strategy for Iran last May, Secretary Pompeo stated that President Trump is ``ready, willing, and able to negotiate a new deal'' but also made clear that ``we will not renegotiate the JCPOA itself.'' On May 8, Iranian President Rouhani stated: We are ready to negotiate, within the boundaries of JCPOA. . . . It is not us who left the negotiation table. These seem to be irreconcilable positions, especially after the latest round of sanctions directed at the Iranian leadership. Lastly and most significant, I believe, the current approach could result in a military conflict between the United States and Iran. The destruction of an American unmanned drone flying in international airspace by a missile fired from Iran is an example of the potential for widespread conflict. Only at the last minute did President Trump call off a strike against the Iranian missile sites in retaliation. He concluded correctly that such a strike would be disproportionate. But the incident underscores the precarious position we are in after months of the misguided ``maximum pressure'' campaign. Iranian action, either directed by national leadership or mistakenly taken by zealous supporters, could put us on an escalatory ladder of strike and counterstrike that would involve the entire region from Afghanistan to the Levant. In addition and equally troubling is that an unarticulated goal of this so-called ``Maximum Pressure'' campaign is to prompt Iran to leave the JCPOA either officially or by gradually increasing its stock of highly enriched uranium or other aspects of its nuclear program. This could give advocates for a military strike on Iran increased leverage. Again, such a strike, even targeted to nuclear facilities, would likely prompt a regional asymmetric response by Iran, with significant military as well as economic consequences. Like all of my colleagues, I am deeply concerned about Iranian threats to U.S. personnel facilities in the Middle East. U.S. forces have the unquestioned and inherent right to defend themselves, but absent an Iranian directed or sponsored attack or the imminent threat of such an attack on U.S. personnel facilities or key strategic interests, military actions should be pursued only as a last resort and as part of an international coalition, which the administration has so far failed to bring together. I will be supporting the amendment offered by Senator Udall because it would make clear that any offensive military action against Iran must be consistent with domestic and international law, including a specific authorization for the use of military force, or an AUMF, provided by Congress. In this context, the President's demonstrated willingness not just to bend the facts but to indulge, in certain cases, in fabrications is particularly concerning and unacceptable when it may come to deploying our troops into harm's way. Congress has the responsibility to demand and, if necessary, challenge the basis for unsupported assertions of Iranian aggression and provocation that could be used to take this country to war. Echoing one of the themes used in the Bush administration's justification for the 2003 Iraq war, Secretary of State Pompeo testified to the Senate in April that ``there's no doubt there is a connection between the Islamic Republic of Iran and al Qaeda. Period. Full stop.'' And he refused to rule out the use of the 2001 AUMF as a means to conduct military action against Iran. While Iran is a state sponsor of terror, I am not aware of compelling evidence to suggest Iran or Iranian affiliated groups are an ``associated force'' of al-Qaida for the purposes of the 2001 AUMF. In fact, such an arrangement is hard to fathom, given the deep religious and ideological differences between the Shia leadership of Iran and the Sunni leadership of al-Qaida. The administration must come to Congress if it seeks to pursue offensive military action. Likewise, any consideration of military action against Iran must fully account for the likely cost of such an engagement--in lives, resources, potential negative impact on the global economy, disruption of U.S. bilateral relationships, and other unintended consequences. The administration must provide the American people with a clear-eyed assessment of what those costs may be in advance of any contemplated military engagement. The Trump administration's escalatory attacks may soon place Iran in an untenable position. As a result, Iran may seek to change the status quo by initiating a limited military conflict with the United States, thereby requiring the intervention of the international community. If such a scenario comes to pass, our recent efforts to deter Iran through the deployment of additional military capabilities to the region will have failed, and even a limited conflict would be very difficult to manage or to bring to a conclusion. The President and others in the administration have consistently downplayed the potential costs of conflict with Iran. In fact, just yesterday, the President said that ``if something should happen [with Iran], we're in a very strong position. It wouldn't last very long.'' The President's assessment is undercut by his own Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, who told Congress earlier this year: Iran continues to develop and approve a range of new military capabilities to target U.S. and allied military assets in the region, including armed UAVs, ballistic missiles, advanced naval mines, unmanned explosive boats, submarines and advanced torpedoes, and antiship and land- attack cruise missiles. Iran has the largest ballistic missile force in the Middle East and can strike targets up to 2,000 kilometers from Iran's borders. Russia's delivery of the SA-20c SAM system in 2016 has provided Iran with its most advanced long-range air defense system. In addition to the conventional military capabilities laid out by Director Coats, Iran maintains a network of proxy forces throughout the region, many of whom operate in close proximity to U.S. military personnel in Iraq and Syria. They maintain the capability to conduct lethal action against our forces and facilities without notice. Recently retired commander of the U.S. Central Command, General Votel, told the Armed Services Committee in February: The Iranian regime masks its malign activities through proxies and surrogates enabled by the Iran Threat Network in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. Iran is also attempting to build ground lines of communication through Iraq and Syria into Lebanon to support its proxy Hezbollah. Iran has gained influence with Iraq's armed forces with the formalization of Popular Mobilization Forces, and also exerted influence in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, oftentimes affecting established sovereign governments. The combination of Iran's known conventional and asymmetric capabilities should dispel any notion that conflict with Iran would be quick or could be won only through the use of U.S. air power. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates reportedly said in a recent speech: ``If you think the war in Iraq was hard, an attack on Iran would, in my opinion, be a catastrophe.'' He continued: ``[Iranian] capacity to wage a series of terror attacks across the Middle East aimed at us and our friends, and dramatically worsen the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and elsewhere is hard to overestimate.'' All of the competent military analysts I have engaged with believe that we cannot conduct an effective land campaign in Iran, and an extended air and sea campaign will undercut the priorities laid out in the national defense strategy, which focuses not on the Middle East but on Russia and China. Absent the full mobilization of our Armed Forces and those of our allies, ground operations in Iran are simply beyond our capacity. The last ground war involving Iran, the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, resulted in the death of nearly 1 million troops, the majority of whom were Iranians who died fighting a superior Iraqi military during a brutal and prolonged conflict. There is clearly no widespread U.S. or international support for another such military engagement in the Middle East. Considering the costs associated with ground operations, a more limited conflict involving a series of tit-for-tat actions is far more likely, with Iran utilizing its asymmetric advantages and proxies in response to U.S. precision and standoff strikes. It is unlikely that U.S. deterrence could be quickly reestablished under such a scenario, and Iran may use the time to restart and advance its nuclear weapons efforts, thereby increasing its negotiating leverage and also making the situation much more volatile. War with Iran is not inevitable. To date, the administration has tried to use every instrument of national power to get Iran to change its behavior--except diplomacy and negotiations. The administration's ill-conceived approach has not worked, and the time has come to try real and sustained diplomacy, rather than relying on coercion. I urge the President and those in the administration to take this moment of high tension to engage with our allies and partners with the goal of seeking a diplomatic solution to the current situation. In that context and in that spirit, I will support the Udall amendment tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, pursuant to the order in place, we recess.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, first let me thank Senator Inhofe for his leadership and his cooperation, which has gotten us to this point in the consideration of the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. The chairman has been thoughtful. He has been very reasonable. We had a record hearing in our committee in terms of the number of amendments we dealt with and how we did it in a very collegial fashion. As a result, we were able to once again, as he has indicated, include 93 additional amendments in the substitute package that has been submitted. That is testimony to the good work of the chairman and the outstanding work of our staff, who have been working very diligently, and I appreciate it. This is a very good bill. It passed out of committee by a vote of 25 to 2--totally bipartisan vote. It contains many needed authorities, funding authorizations, and reforms that will help the men and women of our Armed Services. As both of us have indicated, it also contains numerous amendments from many of my colleagues on other issues of great importance, such as, for example, the intelligence authorization. We have included in this legislation the work of the Intelligence Committee not just for this year but the past 3 years. So we will now have up-to-date authorities for the intelligence community. We will authorize the Maritime Administration. We have provisions that range far and wide. We have an amendment dealing with the fentanyl crisis. We have an amendment dealing with the PFOS/PFAS in our water around military bases. This is a significant crisis we are beginning to recognize more and more each day. This legislation is extremely supportive of the men and women in uniform and, indeed, touches on many other important aspects that are necessary as we move forward. As we both said in our opening statements last week, we would like to have a robust debate on this bill and vote on amendments. It was the process for many years. We need to get back to the process where we have amendments--some of them contentious, some of them not so contentious, but there would be an agreed-upon path, a reasonable time for debate, and then a vote. In fact, the Chairman and I try to work together. When we have differences, we say: Well, that will be resolved by a vote. If you can't agree to a consensus compromise, then in this Chamber you ultimately hope you can get a vote, and that will be the deciding factor. I understand there are differences about the proceedings, particularly with respect to the issue of potential military action against Iran. I do not think anyone will argue with the fact that it is a very pressing issue and the Senate has a role we are obligated to fulfill. Last week, the chairman and I were both at the White House, and the President very graciously listened to our thoughts and ideas about the response to the drone strike. We are in a situation where potential conflict or interaction with Iran is not hypothetical. Just 4, 5 days ago, we were confronted with a very serious situation. The President made a decision not to use a kinetic strike on Iran. I think that was an appropriate decision. But we are at a point now where the Senate as an institution--not as individuals accommodating the President but as an institution--has to take a position, I feel. We understand, too, that as the administration applies more and more pressure on the Iranian regime, there will be several likelihoods. One will be that these reactions to our pressure will take place. As the President indicated in his televised comments, his first sense was this was probably not officially authorized, that it may have been a subordinate who had taken the action, which had minimized, to a degree, the severity. Of course, the most significant factor of all was that we had lost an expensive piece of equipment, but, thank goodness, we didn't lose any American personnel. Nevertheless, this pressure campaign is producing a counterreaction, and that counterreaction could be more and more dangerous to our interests. It could escalate. It would create a situation in which the question of armed conflict with Iran will not be, as I said, theoretical, but something we will have to confront. The dangers of miscalculation and escalation on both sides are acute at the moment. So we have to, I think, as a Senate take a position with respect to this issue. That is why I think the amendment is extremely important. What I would hope we would all like to see is that we are able to accomplish two things--one, to have an adequate debate and a vote on this amendment. There may be other amendments people will propose on which they will feel strongly about having votes, and we could consider those also; two, our ability to conclude our debate on the Defense authorization bill and move forward. I don't think we have given up on that pathway yet. I think we are still trying to find a pathway to address these critical issues of national security, with respect to there being a potential conflict with Iran as well as our finishing this bill in a timely fashion. I don't think it will be months from now but really days from now or a week or more from now that we will finish this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to find this path forward. Again, the chairman has been extremely responsive and thoughtful about this, and his views and participation will be critical to these efforts. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I just ask permission to speak after Senator Inhofe as the ranking minority member and comanager of the legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I commend the chairman for the bipartisan and thoughtful way he has approached this entire process of crafting the National Defense Authorization Act for this year. We had a very successful markup. The result was a strong bipartisan vote of 25 to 2 on the committee. Subsequently, with our staff, we have done an extraordinary job. We have been able to include an additional 100 amendments, on a bipartisan basis, to the substitute. So we have been able, I think, to respond to all of the concerns of our colleagues or very many of these concerns of our colleagues. The chairman has indicated some of the strengths of the bill. We have increased our operations and maintenance funding so our readiness stature and posture is increasing. One area, too, that I think is very important is the fundamental reform of privatized housing which was a real problem that we discovered. Again, the chairman led two very thorough hearings in which we had not only the operators but also the families who live there. The legislation before us contains significant improvements in the privatized family housing at the Department of Defense. That is something critically important. I, too, like the chairman, would like to see a very open amendment process so we can bring to the floor amendments that are important and linked to the national defense bill, have votes on these amendments, and then move forward. Let me just conclude my brief remarks by thanking the chairman for his leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague Senator Inhofe to discuss the fiscal year 2020 national defense authorization bill. I want to begin by thanking Senator Inhofe for his leadership and bipartisanship throughout the drafting of this bill. Like you, Senator, I was living through the draft period, but when you join the Army at 17, you don't worry about the draft at 18, but we share that in common also. The Armed Services Committee, as the chairman indicated, held a series of very thoughtful hearings that greatly informed the shaping of this bill. During last month's markup of the bill, we had a day of good discussion and debate, and the bill was voted out of the committee by a strong bipartisan vote of 25 to 2. I hope we can now have an equally productive consideration of this bill on the floor. I know Senator Inhofe and I are interested in having votes on amendments, including as many cleared amendments as possible. I believe this bill contains many provisions that will benefit the Department and our servicemembers. There are a few areas I want to highlight, and then I look forward to turning to the consideration of amendments. Several months ago--again, as the chairman indicated--this committee became acutely aware of a crisis in quality and safety of privatized military housing. After many weeks of visiting these houses, talking with the affected families, and holding two hearings, the committee included 32 separate provisions in this bill, addressing housing concerns. Several provisions address the need for increasing transparency, providing better controls on incentive payments to companies, requiring standardized leases and satisfaction surveys, and creating a discrete resolution process. In some instances, the Department has already begun implementing some of the provisions, such as instituting a Tenant Bill of Rights. Privatized housing is still a long way from where it needs to be in terms of providing quality homes for our military families, but this bill will begin to hold private companies accountable and ensure that the military services have new tools and capabilities to exercise oversight so we can all honor our commitment to our warfighters and to their families. The bill includes a number of other provisions that support the quality of life for our military personnel, including a 3.1-percent pay raise, $40 million in supplemental impact aid for federally impacted local school districts, and $10 million in impact aid for severely disabled military children. Unfortunately, the bill does not authorize additional funding to support pay raises for the Department's civilian workforce, as the administration proposed a pay freeze for the Federal Government civilian workforce for 2020. I hope that as we move through this bill and the appropriations bill, we can rectify this error. The gap between the military pay raise and civilian pay raise has never been greater than what the administration has proposed in this year's budget. This is a shortsighted measure that will ultimately harm our national security. We cannot hope to recruit and retain highly qualified individuals into the civil service and our military departments if salaries do not keep pace with the private sector or inflation. The Department's civilian workforce is a critical component of the total force and across the government a vital component to our national defense and national security. Sexual Assault Prevention Mr. President, the committee continues to enhance sexual assault prevention response efforts in the military. Over the years, we have enacted more than 100 provisions to address sexual assault. This year, we require the GAO to examine all sexual assault provisions enacted since 2003 to help us determine how they have been implemented and if they are making a difference. This year's bill pays particular attention to prevention of sexual assault. It requires a comprehensive policy to improve education, training, empower and enhance the role of noncommissioned officers in the prevention of sexual assault, promote healthy relationships by addressing behaviors across the continuum of harm related to sexual assault, and foster the social courage to promote interventions. This provision also addresses alcohol abuse, which is commonly associated with sexual assault. Although the issue of sexual assault is a national problem--not just a military problem--we remain committed to ensuring the military is at the forefront of combating this scourge. If the problem of sexual assault in the military is not adequately addressed, it will continue to undermine good order and discipline in our Armed Forces. In the area of acquisition reform, the bill continues to improve the Pentagon's ability to build and buy the technologies and systems it needs to protect our national security while responsibly spending taxpayer money. For example, the bill mandates that the Defense Department continue to streamline acquisition and contracting processes, including through the use of small, focused teams, in accordance with the recommendations of the GAO. The bill also seeks to ensure that the Defense Department is aware of the state of its industrial base and has better knowledge of the contractors with whom it works. The bill includes a provision that directs the Department to establish processes by which it can determine the actual ownership of the companies with which it signs contracts. We have seen instances where Chinese and Russian interests are the actual owners of some of the companies in our defense supply chain, raising grave concerns with the security and reliability of those contractors. We need to take steps to make sure that industrial base is secure. The bill also strengthens the Department's ability to secure fair prices and good value from its contractors. The bill directs the Department to ensure that contractors supply accurate information on the price of goods, technologies, and services, and to report instances where contractors are not providing required pricing information. It also directs the Department to engage the academic community in order to develop more streamlined and data-driven methods to determine fair and reasonable pricing. In the area of science and technology, I am pleased that the bill authorizes increases in funding for critical technology areas like cyber security, undersea warfare, and manufacturing. The bill also directs the Department to develop a coordinated research program in emerging biotechnologies. Every day, we learn about new advances in biotechnology, ranging from gene editing to high-speed vaccine development and even cloning. We need to make sure the Defense Department has robust and informed research efforts in these areas, as well as initiatives to monitor the potential threats to our forces and the public that may emerge as a result of these technologies. In addition, the bill includes multiple provisions related to the 5G wireless competition--a competition that the United States and its allies and partners cannot afford to lose as 5G becomes the foundation for the next set of world-changing technological advances that will power the global economy. Driverless cars, the internet of things, advanced manufacturing, smart cities, and telemedicine are just a sample of what will depend on high-speed, high-capacity, and low- latency wireless networks. We must have a national and indeed international strategy to secure these networks and electronics supply chains, and this bill sets out the role the Defense Department should play in that effort. This year's bill also encourages the Department to continue its engagement with the university community, whose work and basic research generate the innovations that drive our economic growth and bolster our national security. We must promote U.S. university research in both the Defense Department and civilian agencies, protect the innovations that result from that work, and set up mechanisms to welcome the best and brightest technical minds to stay in our Nation after their academic studies in order to benefit from their contributions in these important fields, which have ramifications for our economy and our national security. I am turning now to some other areas. This bill supports the Army of today, as well as ensures that our soldiers are well prepared for the challenges of tomorrow. The bill also authorizes funds for critical legacy platforms that the Army must rely upon until new systems are fielded in the future, including upgrades to the M1 Abrams tank and Stryker platform. The bill supports many Army modernization objectives, including long-range precision fires, next-generation combat vehicles, and the Army's Future Vertical Lift Program. The bill also seeks to fill some capability gaps in the Army by authorizing additional funding for hypersonic weapons development and increased investments in Army artillery systems. In the area of ship construction, the bill approves the continued construction of two Virginia-class submarines in fiscal year 2020 and authorizes advance procurement for a third boat in fiscal year 2023. The bill also authorizes an additional $522 million to make sure that both attack submarines planned in fiscal year 2020 are built with the Virginia Payload Module. Regarding other Navy ship construction programs, the bill ensures responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. It expands the cost cap for the Ford-class aircraft carrier program to cover the recently signed contract for a two-carrier buy. This language will ensure that the Navy and the contractor actually deliver on the cost savings promised when the two-ship deal was signed. The bill also tightens the cost cap on the Ford-class carriers since the design for the Ford-class should be stable for the carriers built after the lead ship, the USS Gerald R. Ford. In addition, the bill requires the Secretary of the Navy to designate a senior technical authority for each class of naval vessels. This senior technical authority would be a professional engineer in the Navy Sea Systems Command who could counterbalance the input from the uniformed Navy in pursuing ship acquisition programs. In the area of strategic systems, the bill continues to support modernization of all three legs of the nuclear triad: the Columbia- class submarine, the B-21 bomber, and the ground-based strategic deterrent. All are major acquisition programs that will take decades to field. As we move forward, bipartisan support for these programs will remain essential. If we are to maintain a sea-based deterrent, we must begin to replace our current fleet of 14 Ohio-class submarines in 2027. The bill provides funds for advance procurement for the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine program and authorizes an additional $125 billion to expand the capabilities of the second- and third-tier contractors in the submarine industrial base. Ensuring that these second- and third-tier contractors are ready to expand their production will be important, indeed critical to keep the Columbia-class program on track. Turning to the air leg of the triad, the B-52 bomber was fielded in 1962. While its longevity is impressive, we need to bring its replacement, the B-21, online, we hope, in the 2030s. The bill also continues to support the replacement for the cruise missile, which is our principal stand-off weapon for the B-52 and an important signaling hedge under the New START treaty. Turning to the administration's proposal for a Space Force, I would like to briefly highlight what this bill includes. In reviewing the administration's proposal, the committee held numerous briefings on the importance of space to national security and the protection of our space assets. The committee developed a bipartisan proposal for a Space Force that minimizes the overhead costs by keeping the Space Force within the Air Force since this force will be comprised of about 15,000 Active-Duty members who are almost exclusively Air Force personnel. I believe this was a reasonable and cost-effective approach to stand up the Space Force during its first few years. I do have concerns about two provisions added during the markup process, one which makes the Space Force chief a member of the Joint Chiefs and a second provision that requires the Space Force chief to report directly to the Secretary of the Air Force. This latter provision will require an additional staff of up to 2,000 people, with an annual cost of somewhere between $200 million to $500 million. I am hopeful that we can address these issues during conference to find the best way forward to ensure our Nation is adequately organized and focused on the space mission. Turning to countering the continued threat posed by ISIS and other violent extremist groups, the bill extends the Iraq and Syria train- and-equip programs at the requested funding level, while ensuring appropriate congressional oversight of the use of such funds. Additionally, the bill begins to normalize security assistance to Iraq by transitioning funding to enduring authorities. The bill also includes important authorities to enable more effective information operations by the Department of Defense to counter influence activities by violent extremist groups and near-peer strategic competitors. In the area of special operations, the bill extends and strengthens various authorities utilized by our special operations forces and empowers the Assistant Secretary for Special Operations and Low- Intensity Conflict to provide advocacy and oversight of special operations forces. In addition, the bill ensures adequate congressional oversight of the activities conducted by the U.S. military, including special operations forces, by ensuring appropriate access to policy and other documents that authorize operations overseas. Having recently returned from Afghanistan, I am pleased the bill authorizes the administration's full request for funds to support the ongoing U.S. military efforts as part of Operation Freedom's Sentinel and Operation Resolute Support in Afghanistan and includes a new reporting requirement to enhance oversight of the ongoing advisory mission there. The bill contains a number of provisions to build capabilities for our strategic competition with Russia. This includes authorizing full funding of the budget request for the European Deterrence Initiative, or the EDI, to support the U.S. military presence in Europe, enhance multilateral training and exercises, and build partner capacity. The bill also authorizes an increase in funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, for a total of $300 million, of which $100 million is available only for lethal assistance. This sends an important signal to Russia that its aggression against Ukraine, including its attack on Ukrainian naval vessels in the Kerch Strait, has consequences. The bill also renews an authority to provide security assistance to the Baltic countries for a joint procurement program. With regard to Turkey, the committee worked closely with Senators Lankford, Shaheen, Van Hollen, and Tillis to include a provision that prohibits the transfer of the F-35 aircraft to Turkey, which can only be waived if the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, can certify to Congress that Turkey has not accepted delivery of the Russian S-400 air defense system and has provided reliable assurances that it will not do so in the future. This sends a strong message to President Erdogan that he will not have both the Russian S-400 and the F-35 co-located on Turkish soil. The bill also includes provisions that prioritize defense investments to deter Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific region, including adding Pacific Island nations to the Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative and supporting a multi-domain task force to develop capabilities and operational concepts to improve our posture in the region. To conclude, this bill authorizes $665.7 billion in base funding, which is roughly $90 billion above the Budget Control Act, or BCA, caps. I want to applaud the chairman's decision to move about $98 billion of funding the President requested for base requirements in OCO back into the base budget where it belongs. The Department needs additional resources, particularly to restore readiness, to invest in emerging technologies, and to address unforeseen situations, such as hurricane damage, but as it stands now, this bill, if fully funded, would trigger sequestration. Until Congress either repeals the BCA or reaches a new budget agreement, the extra $90 billion is aspirational, but not real money. I think we are creating difficulties for ourselves and the Department if suddenly this funding must be stripped out. Of all the issues we are considering in Congress, the budget situation is, to my mind, the most critical and urgent one, and I hope my colleagues are as eager as I am to address this issue. Again, let me commend Chairman Inhofe for his efforts in getting us to this point. Let me also thank our staffs, who did a superb job and continue to do a superb job. Let me thank my colleagues on the committee, including the Presiding Officer, for their thoughtful, creative, responsible, and very hard work in getting this bill done. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and to an open debate on the floor, voting on the bill, and getting this legislation passed and moving forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that Jeremy Maginot, a Coast Guard fellow in my office, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of this Congress. I also ask unanimous consent that another fellow in my office, Aminata Sy, be granted privileges of the floor until August 2, 2019.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing the Corporate Management Accountability Act, which asks each publicly traded company to disclose its policies on whether senior executives or shareholders bear the costs of paying the company's fines and penalties. In 2014, William Dudley. then the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, gave a speech on Enhancing Financial Stability by Improving Culture in the Financial Services Industry. In this speech, President Dudley said, ``in recent years, there have been ongoing occurrences of serious professional misbehavior, ethical lapses and compliance failures at financial institutions. This has resulted in a long list of large fines and penalties, and, to a lesser degree than I would have desired employee dismissals and punishment. . . . The pattern of bad behavior did not end with the financial crisis, but continued despite the considerable public sector intervention that was necessary to stabilize the financial system. As a consequence. the financial industry has largely lost the public trust.'' Since 2009, banks globally have paid $372 billion in penalties, according to the Boston Consulting Group. However, despite these fines, financial institutions continue to engage in unacceptable behavior, whether it is Wells Fargo betraying the trust of its customers by opening unauthorized accounts or it is Equifax endangering millions of consumers by compromising critical personal information. Indeed, in my home State of Rhode Island, almost half the State may have been impacted by the cybersecurity breach at Equifax. These and other breaches and lapses illustrate how far financial institutions have to go in rebuilding the trust of Rhode Islanders and the American people. At the same time, it is evident that simply fining and penalizing financial institutions at the corporate level is not enough to deter bad actors. Senior executives, many of whom are all too eager to take credit for a company's good news, must also take more responsibility for the bad news, especially if it is true that the buck stops with them. For example, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded ``the financial crisis reached cataclysmic proportions with the collapse of Lehman Brothers,'' and yet, according to the Congressional Research Service. not a single senior executive officer at Lehman Brothers at the Federal level was charged, went to jail, or personally paid a Federal fine or penalty for the damage caused at Lehman Brothers that rippled through our economy in 2008. According to Professor Peter J. Henning, who also writes the White Collar Watch column in the New York Times. ``a problem in holding individuals accountable for misconduct in an organization is the disconnect between the actual decisions and those charged with overseeing the company, so that executives and corporate boards usually plead ignorance about an issue until it is too late.'' The Corporate Management Accountability Act I am reintroducing today is one attempt at helping to solve this problem. The bill simply asks publicly traded companies to disclose whether they expect senior executives or shareholders to pay the cost of corporate fines or penalties. This approach is supported by University of Minnesota Law School Professors Claire Hill and Richard Painter, who also served as President George W. Bush's chief ethics lawyer, as well as Americans for Financial Reform. I urge all my colleagues to join this legislative effort to hold senior executives accountable for their actions.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing the Corporate Management Accountability Act, which asks each publicly traded company to disclose its policies on whether senior executives or shareholders bear the costs of paying the company's fines and penalties. In 2014, William Dudley. then the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, gave a speech on Enhancing Financial Stability by Improving Culture in the Financial Services Industry. In this speech, President Dudley said, ``in recent years, there have been ongoing occurrences of serious professional misbehavior, ethical lapses and compliance failures at financial institutions. This has resulted in a long list of large fines and penalties, and, to a lesser degree than I would have desired employee dismissals and punishment. . . . The pattern of bad behavior did not end with the financial crisis, but continued despite the considerable public sector intervention that was necessary to stabilize the financial system. As a consequence. the financial industry has largely lost the public trust.'' Since 2009, banks globally have paid $372 billion in penalties, according to the Boston Consulting Group. However, despite these fines, financial institutions continue to engage in unacceptable behavior, whether it is Wells Fargo betraying the trust of its customers by opening unauthorized accounts or it is Equifax endangering millions of consumers by compromising critical personal information. Indeed, in my home State of Rhode Island, almost half the State may have been impacted by the cybersecurity breach at Equifax. These and other breaches and lapses illustrate how far financial institutions have to go in rebuilding the trust of Rhode Islanders and the American people. At the same time, it is evident that simply fining and penalizing financial institutions at the corporate level is not enough to deter bad actors. Senior executives, many of whom are all too eager to take credit for a company's good news, must also take more responsibility for the bad news, especially if it is true that the buck stops with them. For example, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded ``the financial crisis reached cataclysmic proportions with the collapse of Lehman Brothers,'' and yet, according to the Congressional Research Service. not a single senior executive officer at Lehman Brothers at the Federal level was charged, went to jail, or personally paid a Federal fine or penalty for the damage caused at Lehman Brothers that rippled through our economy in 2008. According to Professor Peter J. Henning, who also writes the White Collar Watch column in the New York Times. ``a problem in holding individuals accountable for misconduct in an organization is the disconnect between the actual decisions and those charged with overseeing the company, so that executives and corporate boards usually plead ignorance about an issue until it is too late.'' The Corporate Management Accountability Act I am reintroducing today is one attempt at helping to solve this problem. The bill simply asks publicly traded companies to disclose whether they expect senior executives or shareholders to pay the cost of corporate fines or penalties. This approach is supported by University of Minnesota Law School Professors Claire Hill and Richard Painter, who also served as President George W. Bush's chief ethics lawyer, as well as Americans for Financial Reform. I urge all my colleagues to join this legislative effort to hold senior executives accountable for their actions.