Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by a group of members on both sides of the aisle and in both bodies in introducing legislation today to renew the law that expands the reach of libraries and museums and enables them to better serve their communities. These vital institutions educate, inform, engage, and connect people from all walks of life. Our legislation, the Museum and Library Services Act of 2018, is similar to legislation I also introduced on a bipartisan basis in December. That legislation was developed with input and insights from the library and museum communities. Since that time, it became apparent in the library community that a vital change was needed to ensure that funding increases for the State formula grant program would be more broadly shared by States around the Nation. Under the current formula, smaller States have seen little in the way of new funding even as funding significantly increased over the last few years. The last time we addressed this issue was in 2003, and an update, while ensuring no State would lose funding, is needed today so that more communities can benefit from increased investments in our Federal library program. I am grateful our revised bill has the support of the American Library Association, the American Alliance of Museums, and many of their affiliated associations. I thank Senators Collins, Gillibrand, Murkowski, and our many colleagues who are joining us in introducing this bill today. I look forward to working with them and the entire Senate on moving this bill swiftly to passage.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to honor our late colleague and friend, Senator John McCain. I want to begin by offering my deepest sympathies to John's loving wife, Cindy; to his children, Sidney, Meghan, Jack, Jimmy, Bridget, Doug, and Andy; and to that most remarkable woman who shaped his life, his mother, Roberta. Those who knew him knew that, above all else, John was a loving father, devoted husband, and a dedicated family man. Today we mourn with the entire McCain family. I would like at this time to take a few moments to reflect on his heroic legacy. When I think of John McCain, two words come to mind: courage and sacrifice. As the son and grandson of decorated naval officers, the desire to serve his country ran deep in John. Following in their footsteps, he graduated from the Naval Academy and went on to serve his country in Vietnam. The events that followed, including his bravery facing unrelenting anti-aircraft fire, being shot down, captured, and held in horrific conditions, have become military legend. His indomitable spirit carried him through his years of imprisonment, but his willingness to sacrifice for his fellow servicemembers should be a testament to all of his courage and sacrifice. As everyone knows well, John endured grueling hardship throughout his captivity. On courage, he so eloquently explained: ``Courage is not the absence of fear, but the capacity to act despite our fears.'' At one point during his captivity, John made what I can only imagine to be one of the most difficult decisions of his life. He was offered special treatment and release due to his family's military prominence, but he refused. He stated that he would not accept release until all the prisoners of war taken before him were also released. To put his comrades and his country before his own welfare, especially when confronted with a future of uncertainty and abuse, is the most profound example of his willingness to sacrifice his life for others. John spent more than 5 years in captivity at the Hanoi Hilton, but rather than allowing the horrors of the experience to continue to color his life, he instead returned to the Navy for several years before beginning a career in business. Not long after, he again heeded the call to service and won a seat in the House of Representatives representing Arizona. The first indication that Senator McCain would be an outspoken leader and staunch defender of servicemembers came when, as a freshman member of the House, he opposed legislation supported by President Reagan to keep marines in Lebanon. He refused to further endanger servicemembers for an objective that he viewed as unattainable. It took political courage and conviction for John to stand up to a man he has called one of his heroes and oppose him on principle. This willingness to stand by his convictions and speak his mind, no matter the perception, would become a hallmark of Senator John McCain. First in the House, then in the Senate, and on the Presidential campaign trail with the aptly named ``Straight Talk Express,'' John was renowned for the candid expression of his thoughts and steadfast defense of his principles. While John and I served for many years together in the Senate, I was fortunate to work most closely with him during the past 4 years when he was chairman of the Armed Services Committee and I was the ranking member. Our pairing could be rocky at times, not because he was a Republican and I was a Democrat but because he went to the Naval Academy and I went to West Point. As John often joked, I did OK for someone who didn't have a college education. Thank you, John. In all seriousness, Senator McCain's leadership was vital in shepherding through Congress numerous National Defense Authorization Acts that have substantively reformed the Department of Defense, improved care for servicemembers, and increased the capacity of our military to meet the myriad national security challenges we face. Throughout his life, Senator McCain was a steadying force through turbulent times in global affairs. The threats to our national security and the stability of the global order are more numerous and diverse now than at any point in our recent history. As we grapple with these challenges, we should remember John's guidance: ``We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil. We are the custodians of those ideals at home, and their champion abroad.'' He believed in an America that is united by values, not divided by manufactured distrust and animus. Most importantly, he emphasized the moral obligation that we, as Americans, carry to provide leadership in the world and serve as a beacon of hope, opportunity, and justice, both here and across the globe. As a further reflection, I was always impressed by John's respect for colleagues who were committed to principle but who sought principled compromise. This respect animated our relationship and made it possible to find common ground. Finally, what ultimately motivated John McCain, I believe, was the knowledge that thousands and thousands of Americans in uniform were protecting this Nation. He understood that we owed these men and women and their families more than we could ever really pay. He always kept faith with these valiant Americans and inspired all of us here to keep that faith. As our sailors, soldiers, marines, and airmen guarded our country and Constitution, he guarded them with a special and profound love. I will miss Senator McCain's partnership and friendship, and this Chamber will be hard pressed to find a more respected voice of reason and bipartisanship. It is my hope that we can follow in the footsteps of the virtues that Senator John McCain exemplified: courage, sacrifice, compassion, determination, and, above all else, an unyielding patriotism that motivated a lifetime of service. We can best honor Senator McCain by living our lives by the example he set. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today to support the Senator from Florida, my dear friend Senator Bill Nelson, and to thank him for his leadership in working on a bipartisan basis to enact the Military Lending Act in 2006, which caps the annual interest rate for an extension of consumer credit to a servicemember or his or her dependents at 36 percent. Because of his efforts, servicemembers and their families have strong consumer protections that defend them against unscrupulous lenders who unpatriotically, in my view, prey upon these young men and women while they are selflessly and valiantly serving this Nation. It has been my honor to work with the Senator from Florida in enacting, protecting, and strengthening the Military Lending Act since 2006. I must say that my experience is not just as a legislator. I had the privilege of commanding a paratrooper company in the 82nd Airborne Division, and before that I was the executive officer. I spent many, many hours with young soldiers who had been taken advantage of by--not all businessmen, but, in fact, very few--unscrupulous operators who would prey on them, who would leave them in a financial condition that ruined their careers and their lives. Because of Senator Nelson's efforts in passing the Military Lending Act, we took some steps to protect these young men and women who are protecting us, and we owe the Senator a great deal of regard and respect for what he has done because he, too, has recognized the demands of service to our Nation by men and women in uniform. For generations, Americans have set aside partisanship and have made every effort to provide servicemembers and their families with all the resources and protections they deserve. Indeed, it should not matter to servicemembers whether the Commander in Chief is a Democrat, Republican, or Independent, and there should never be a question whether an administration will make every effort to support men and women in uniform. Unfortunately, this administration is forcing servicemembers to question whether the administration has their backs in light of recent reports that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, under OMB Director Mulvaney's leadership, will no longer make every effort to protect servicemembers and their families under the Military Lending Act due to their claim of a purported lack of authority. Let me be clear. The CFPB has all the authority it needs, and it should not be abandoning its duty to protect our servicemembers and their families and ensure that they continue to receive all their MLA protections. We should not forget that the CFPB's routine examination of at least one payday lender already uncovered Military Lending Act violations, where a payday lender extended loans at rates higher than 36 percent to more than 300 Active-Duty servicemembers or their dependents. Let me also put this in perspective. The requirements of the Military Lending Act set an interest ceiling of 36 percent. In this environment, 36 percent is more than an adequate return, and the idea that businesspeople would be trying to engage soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen in lending arrangements that went beyond 36 percent is, on its face, not only deplorable but flabbergasting. That is what CFPB was able to further prevent. Because of their supervisory activities, they were able to discover these violations, alert the appropriate authorities, and stop these individuals from continuing to prey on service men and women. In an April 2018 DOD letter I received, the Department of Defense stated: ``initial indications are the new MLA rules . . . are having their intended outcomes . . . the use of high-cost credit products and associated readiness problems appear to be decreasing.'' We are making progress under Senator Nelson's MLA and under the leadership of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect servicemen and servicewomen. Why would we turn our backs and retreat? Servicemembers wouldn't turn their backs and retreat. Why is Director Mulvaney suggesting we do that? Indeed, DOD has stated that losing a servicemember due to personnel issues, such as financial instability, cost taxpayers and DOD more than $58,000 for each separated servicemember. Again, recalling my service, dealing with young men--and at that time paratroopers were all males in the 82nd--dealing with these young men, their whole lives were ruined. They were reported for being late for formations or missing formations because their car had been repossessed or they were so overwhelmed by debt they didn't realize they were accumulating, they couldn't function. They could lose their security clearances because one factor of maintaining a security clearance is having no credit problems. They could be dismissed at a cost to taxpayers of $58,000 per servicemember for each separation. So in addition to saving the Department of Defense and taxpayers money, the CFPB's Office of Servicemember Affairs--again, on a bipartisan basis, working with Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, I cosponsored legislation that created within the CFPB an organization that is exclusively devoted to protecting servicemembers. The first Director was Holly Petraeus. She did a superb job. She was succeeded by a career JAG officer, Colonel Kantwill, who also did a superb job. This organization, the CFPB, with their Office of Servicemember Affairs, has all the authority it needs and an obligation to protect the men and women in uniform who protect us. Their website says it has ``helped return hundreds of millions into the pockets of servicemembers affected by harmful practices.'' The CFPB, through the Office of Servicemember Affairs, has returned hundreds of millions of dollars to men and women in uniform who were being victimized by unscrupulous operators, and we are going to stop that? We are going to walk away from success? As I said before, are we going to turn our backs and retreat on people who don't turn their backs and retreat on this Nation? That is why it is frustrating, and it is inexplicable that the Trump administration would tout its dedication to servicemembers in one breath and roll back military consumer protections with the next. To set the record straight, rolling back MLA protections prioritizes the interests of predatory lenders over the interests of servicemembers and their families. If you can't make a decent return with a limit of 36 percent interest, you shouldn't be in business--you shouldn't be a legitimate business. This is not what any administration, Republican or Democratic, should do and certainly not what the CFPB should do. As the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and also having had the highest privilege of serving this Nation in uniform, I stand with my fellow veterans, my colleagues, and all Americans to call on the administration to do the right thing, honor our Nation's commitment to provide servicemembers and their families with all the protections they have earned. Again, I thank the Senator from Florida for his efforts. Because without his efforts, we would not have the Military Lending Act. Service men and women would be victimized even more grievously. So to Mr. Nelson, I salute him and thank him and urge him to continue his valiant efforts. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I yield back.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to take a minute to thank Senator Collins and our staff for their hard work on the THUD bill. Their professionalism and dedication to a thoughtful, bipartisan process has been key to moving this bill smoothly through committee markup and the floor. Specifically, I want to thank Dabney Hegg, Clare Doherty, Christina Monroe, Nathan Robinson, Jordan Stone, Gus Maples, Rajat Mathur, Jacob Press, and Jason Woolwine. I would also like to thank the full committee staff: Chuck Kieffer, Shannon Hines, Chanda Betourney, Jessica Berry, David Adkins, and Jonathan Graffeo.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the fiscal year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. I am very pleased that we were able to pass the conference report with a bipartisan vote of 87 to 10. I think it represents the quality of the work that was done by my colleagues Senator Inhofe; Congressman Thornberry, the chairman of the House committee; and also Ranking Member Smith. I thank them for their thoughtfulness and cooperation throughout the conference. The passage in the Senate follows the passage last week by a vote of 359 to 54 in the House of Representatives--another strong bipartisan endorsement of the legislation on behalf of the men and women in uniform and the national security of the United States. Also, at this point, I would like to take a moment to recognize Senator John McCain. He has been an extraordinary leader throughout my tenure in the Senate, someone who has been committed to the welfare of the men and women of the military, someone who has spent his life in service to the Nation with courage, with valor, and with exceptional self-sacrifice for all of us. I am sure he is very proud today that this legislation, which bears his name, has passed and become law. Senator McCain has also done something that some people would think impossible; that is, to have a West Point graduate admit that, in many cases, he is indispensable to the national security of the United States. I say that with great affection and great sincerity. Let me highlight several areas that I think are important in this legislation. The bill includes important personnel funding and policy provisions, including a 2.6-percent, across-the-board pay raise for our men and women in uniform. It fully funds the military services' end- strength requests for fiscal year 2019. We are going to bring our troops--particularly, the Army--to the desired strength of our military leaders. It provides $50 million in impact aid for heavily impacted local school districts all across the country. This is critical of the quality of life for the families who serve us, as well as their servicemembers. There are a number of provisions updating the Officer Personnel Management System to enhance recruitment, promotion, and retention of highly skilled officers. With respect to the Army, the bill fully funds a number of critical Army programs, to include the Abrams battle tanks, as well as Apache and Blackhawk helicopters. The bill also makes targeted investments to improve the range and lethality of Army artillery systems, and it supports the fielding of active protection systems on our combat vehicles in order to better protect our soldiers. With respect to the Navy, the conference agreement provides additional funds for vessels for the Navy, including two more littoral combat ships, three more ship-to-shore connectors, and a cable repair ship. The agreement also provides additional money to help second- and third-tier contractors ramp up production to support our Columbia- and Virginia-class submarine acquisition programs. With regard to the Air Force, the bill provides for additional funding to support the light attack aircraft, or the OA-X. The agreement also ensures the Air Force will maintain the current capability of the JSTARS aircraft fleet while they develop new capabilities to replace, and perhaps even improve, the current ground support capability of the JSTARS fleet. This bill represents what has been the hallmark of Secretary Mattis's strategic vision. It reflects the strategic shift toward prioritization of the strategic competition between Russia and China. It supports the President's budget request for resources to deter and, if necessary, defend against aggression from near-peer competitors. This includes $6.3 billion for the European Deterrence Initiative as a continuing demonstration of our commitment to the security of our European allies and the deterrence of Russian expansionism. It also requires a 5-year plan from the Department for the Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative on the necessary resources and activities that counter China's destabilizing behavior in the region. The bill also includes a provision calling on the administration to urgently complete a comprehensive strategy to counter Russian malign influence below the level of direct military conflict. Russia attacked the heart of our democracy in 2016, and our intelligence experts warn of even more sophisticated Russian attacks targeting this year's midterm elections. Yet the administration has failed to bring together our military and nonmilitary tools of national power to counter this Russian aggression, despite a requirement in last year's NDAA to submit to Congress a whole-of-government strategy to counter Russian malign influence. This bill expresses the sense of the Congress that the administration should complete a counter-Russian influence strategy without delay. The conference report also includes a provision that authorizes the President to employ Department of Defense cyber forces to take actions to disrupt the operations of Russian actors attempting to penetrate our election systems and campaign organizations and to plant false and divisive information on social media sites. As I mentioned, the Secretary's national defense policy, which the President endorses, focuses on the shift to the near-peer adversaries of Russia and China. Our legislation reflects that, but we cannot forget the threat from ISIS and extremist organizations. It persists. This bill continues critical programs aimed at countering these groups. Of note, it extends the Iraqi and Syrian train-and-equip programs at the requested funding levels, while requiring appropriate information with respect to the partner forces to be trained and the expected level of engagement with U.S. forces. This is a prudent approach that recognizes the continued threat from ISIS while ensuring appropriate oversight of these authorities in a dynamic environment. I am also pleased the bill includes provisions designed to incorporate lessons learned from the campaign against ISIS that could be more effectively used to account for and respond to allegations of civilian casualties going forward. The bill fully funds the request for U.S. Special Operations Command and includes important provisions to enhance the ability of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict to act as the ``service secretary-like'' civilian responsible for the oversight and advocacy of the Special Operations forces that do so much for us. As we discussed before the vote, the bill also focuses on the issue of the ZTE-Huawei issue that came before this Congress. The conference agreement includes a provision that prohibits the Federal Government and government contractors--this is governmentwide--from buying or using or providing grants and loans to entities buying or using telecommunications equipment and services provided by Chinese companies ZTE and Huawei due to our serious concerns that these companies represent security risks and have violated U.S. sanctions and export control laws. The provision also bans the use of video surveillance equipment from several Chinese companies due to concerns about security risks and infringement of intellectual property rights. The conferees recognize the burden this ban will place on some telecommunications providers, particularly in rural areas, and included direction that government agencies shall prioritize available funding to enable these providers to replace the equipment they have procured from Chinese companies. I am also particularly pleased the conference agreement includes a Senate floor amendment that I authored to ensure that as we proceed to develop new or modified nuclear weapons, the Congress is in a position to provide rigorous oversight to any such request. Given the powerful nature of these weapons, it is essential we maintain our oversight capability on this subject matter. The conference report also contains important oversight language to ensure our Nation can produce the plutonium pits the Department of Defense requires. Los Alamos is our Nation's center of excellence in research and manufacturing of plutonium, and we need to maintain our focus on this laboratory in order to ensure the Department of Defense meets their stockpile requirements with respect to pit production. The conference report contains a number of important provisions related to Turkey. I want to acknowledge the valuable leadership of Senators Shaheen and Tillis in this regard. Turkey is an important NATO ally, and the U.S.-Turkey defense cooperation is multifaceted and deep. However, Turkey's announcement of its intent to buy the Russian S-400 air defense system threatens the integrity of the NATO alliance and would have a significant negative impact on defense cooperation between the United States and Turkey. In addition, the Turkish Government's unlawful detention of Pastor Brunson and other wrongfully held Americans has raised serious questions and concerns about its commitment to the shared values of the NATO alliance and the rule of law. The NDAA conference report calls for their immediate release and requires the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to report to Congress on the status of the U.S.-Turkey relationship, including the impact of Turkey's potential purchase of the S-400 system on the bilateral relationship. The report must also assess, should Turkey proceed with the S-400 purchase, what the impact would be of a significant change in Turkey's participation in the F-35 aircraft program, including reduction or elimination of Turkey's participation. The assessment must include the steps required to mitigate the negative impact of such a change on the United States and other international partners in the F-35 program. The provision also prohibits the Department of Defense from delivering any F-35 aircraft to Turkey until the required report is submitted to the appropriate congressional committees. One issue in this year's NDAA conference negotiations related to Russia sanctions is the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA. CAATSA was an excellent piece of legislation, and the Presiding Officer knows very well because he was the chief author and architect of this bill. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what the conference report does with respect to CAATSA and how the Defense Department intends to use the limited waiver for secondary sanctions provided in this year's NDAA. As I said, I strongly support CAATSA. It was a remarkable piece of work, passing this Senate by 98 to 2. Again, it is a tribute to the leadership not only of the Presiding Officer but Senator Menendez of New Jersey and all of our colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Its sanctions are powerful tools for holding Russia accountable for its interference in our elections and its aggression in Ukraine and elsewhere. As I said, the Senate passed it overwhelmingly, 98 to 2. We have found that the Trump administration has been resisting fully implementing the tough sanctions against Russia that are found in CAATSA, and I urge those sanctions be vigorously enforced. During Senate consideration of the fiscal year 2019 defense budget request, Defense Secretary Mattis raised a concern about one aspect of CAATSA, relating to the secondary sanctions in section 231 on countries or entities that do business with the Russian intelligence or defense sectors. These mandatory sanctions restrict U.S. arms sales and certain financial dealings with countries or entities that engage in a significant transaction to purchase major Russian weapons systems. As Secretary Mattis testified, these secondary sanctions can, however, have the unintended consequence of punishing certain strategic partners that have legacy Russian weapons systems but are looking to transition away from Russia and toward increased purchases of U.S. major defense equipment. Because these countries may buy Russian systems to maintain current capabilities, section 231 sanctions would block U.S. arms sales to them, effectively pushing these countries closer to Russia and making them more dependent on Russian weapons systems. This is the opposite effect of what CAATSA is intended to achieve and undermines our efforts to isolate Russia globally. To address these concerns, Secretary Mattis requested a straight national security waiver to section 231 mandatory sanctions. While CAATSA, as enacted, does include a broad national security waiver, the waiver is subject to CAATSA's expedited review procedures, which provides Congress between 30 and 60 days to review the waiver request. If Congress objects, Congress can try to pass a joint resolution of disapproval under the expedited procedures. If Congress fails to enact a resolution of disapproval within the review period, then the waiver takes effect. The administration contended that CAATSA's national security waiver, subject to the expedited review procedures, was unworkable. They claimed that because the mandatory sanctions that would kick in while Congress reviewed the waiver request for up to 60 days or more--this would cause significant harm to our defense partnerships with these countries and drive them away from purchasing major U.S. defense equipment. In response, the House bill included authority for the President to waive section 231's mandatory sanctions on countries or entities buying major Russian defense equipment if the President makes certain certifications, primarily that the purchaser is reducing its reliance on the Russian defense sector. The House bill was a very wide-open waiver. The only representation of certification the President would make is that the Nation was attempting to move away from Russian influence and Russian supplies. We worked very closely with House colleagues. The Senate version of the NDAA did not have any language with CAATSA, but we had to respond to the House because it was a legitimate issue in conference. Indeed, one of the reasons we avoided any sort of discussion with respect to CAATSA in the Senate was the feeling that there might be a negative impact on the ongoing bilateral relationship with Turkey to persuade the Turkish Government to reverse its decision to buy the Russian S-400 air defense system. Turkey's purchase of the S-400 would almost trigger mandatory sanctions under section 231 and put our defense cooperation with Turkey at risk, including on the F-35 aircraft. The final conference outcome, after discussions back and forth, in a very serious and very thoughtful way, was a very narrow waiver for section 231 sanctions only and reflects a number of important changes to the House provision that raised the bar for the President even to be able to invoke this waiver. First, the conference outcome preserves all existing CAATSA sanctions currently in effect against Russia, including sanctions for Russia's election interference and aggression against Ukraine. Second, the waiver is not available for any transactions with entities in the Russian defense and intelligence sectors that were directly involved in Russian cyber intrusions, including the Russian military intelligence, or GRU. This preserves the purpose of section 231 sanctions, which is to impose costs on the Russian defense and intelligence sectors for cyber intrusions. Third, the waiver is limited in order to keep the pressure on Turkey to reverse its decision to purchase the Russian S-400 air defense system. The waiver is not available for any deals to purchase Russian weapons systems that would harm the integrity of NATO or other alliances in which the United States participates or that would adversely affect ongoing U.S. or coalition operations or that would harm U.S. defense cooperation with the country involved or that would significantly increase the risk of compromising U.S. defense systems or operational capabilities, including through the diversion of sensitive U.S. defense technology. These restrictions are intended to let the Government of Turkey know that the waiver is not a get-of-jail-free card for section 231's mandatory sanctions if Turkey goes ahead and purchases the S-400. Fourth, the conference outcome allows for continued defense cooperation with countries transitioning away from Russia. Secondary sanctions may be waived only if the country is reducing its dependence on Russian major weapons systems or is cooperating with the United States on security matters critical to our strategic interests. This restriction should be narrowly understood to mean that the country involved is cooperating with the United States in the strategic competition with Russia or China, consistent with the administration's national defense strategy authored by Secretary Mattis. As set in the national defense strategy, the central challenge to U.S. security today is the ``re-emergence of long-term strategic competition'' by revisionist powers--specifically Russia and China. Fifth, the conference outcome provides for congressional review under a 30-day notice-and-wait period as an alternative to expedited congressional review procedures provided under CAATSA. Congress would still have 30 days to review the President's certifications with regard to any sanctionable activity and to weigh in with its concerns. Sixth, the conference outcome also enhances congressional oversight of CAATSA's secondary sanctions by adding a report. This report will provide an important baseline for measuring the extent to which countries are reducing their reliance on Russia and requires updated information for the next 5 years on which countries are reducing their transactions with the Russian defense sector. Some of my colleagues have expressed concern that the conference report's waiver for section 231 sanctions is delinked from CAATSA's expedited review procedures. They are concerned that Congress may be giving up its ability to conduct oversight on administrative attempts to invoke waivers. First, let me try to clear up one thing. The authority under CAATSA, as enacted, for a broad national security waiver--subject to an expedited congressional review process--remains unchanged under the conference report and continues to apply to the vast majority of sanctions against Russia under CAATSA. More importantly, we should keep in mind how the Department of Defense intends to use the limited waiver to section 231 provided in the NDAA. As Secretary Mattis wrote to Chairman McCain on July 24, the Department seeks a ``limited exception'' that would ``allow the United States to sell military equipment and enable countries pulling away from the Russian orbit.'' Secretary Mattis further noted that U.S. arms sales are subject to congressional notification in advance. In other words, Secretary Mattis is seeking to avoid the disruption to U.S. arms sales to key strategic partners that would result under section 231 sanctions and to prevent the negative impact such sanctions would have on our strategic relationships with these countries as they transition away from Russia. Even with the limited exception provided under this bill, Congress will still have significant oversight of any U.S. arms sales to countries being exempted from section 231 sanctions. Any sale of U.S. major defense equipment to these transitioning countries--like India, for example--will continue to be subject to congressional review under the well-established requirements of the Arms Export Control Act. That means that Congress typically will have at least 30 days, and often more, to review and approve any foreign military sale for major defense equipment to a country that has received the waiver to secondary sanctions under section 231. Large arms sales are likely to be subject to the FMS review process, but significant direct commercial sales must also be notified to the Foreign Relations Committee 30 days in advance of the export license being issued. The result is that Congress has the ability to conduct oversight of these transactions. Furthermore, under the Arms Export Control Act, Congress has procedures for pursuing a resolution of disapproval prohibiting or modifying the proposed arms sales. Congress's oversight of any major U.S. arms sales that might flow from a waiver of secondary sanctions under section 231 provides us an additional ability to revise and supervise the administration's implementation of this waiver authority. There are specific cases that one could talk about in terms of countries that we are actually trying to engage, such as India, Indonesia, and other countries, but I think what we have tried to do is to structure a very discrete and, in the terms the Secretary of Defense has used, very stringent conditions to the exercise of the sanctions. Let me conclude by again thanking Senator Inhofe, Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and all of the conferees for their bipartisanship throughout the process. This process has been collegial, and this is an example of a strong piece of legislation that addresses concerns of Members on both sides of the aisle. I would also like to thank the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee for all of their hard work on drafting a thoughtful and comprehensive bill. Their diligent work is a tribute to us all. I would be remiss if I didn't single out these extraordinary individuals. I thank Senator McCain's staff director, Chris Brose, who did a superb job; Senator Inhofe's staff director, Luke Holland, Tony McLain; on my staff, Jody Bennett, Jon Clark, Gary Leeling, Creighton Greene, Jonathan Epstein, Ozge Guzelsu, Jon Green, Kirk McConnell, John Quirk, Arun Seraphin, Carolyn Chuhta, Maggie McNamara, Mike Noblet, Jorie Feldman, Bill Monahan, and my staff director, Elizabeth King. I also want to thank Jen Stewart and Paul Arcangeli. They are the staff directors for Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith, respectfully. They did a superb job. With their work and with the inspiration of Senator McCain, we were able to pass an extraordinary and I think very effective piece of legislation. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. I will be happy to.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I also yield back the remainder of my time and urge passage of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I concur entirely with the comments of my colleagues about the dangers and challenges presented by China in many different dimensions. I am not going to try to defend President Trump's decision to overrule his administration's penalties on ZTE for violating our sanctions, but the President's actions created facts on the ground. One of the principal facts was that part of that arrangement was a billion- dollar payment by the Chinese Government to the United States Treasury, creating for the conferees the issue of trying to find a billion-dollar offset if we reimpose this penalty. That billion-dollar offset could come only from military programs of our jurisdiction, end strength of the military, platforms we might acquire; we found it difficult to work our way through that issue. More important, I think, is the notion that we did not simply drop this issue. In fact, we imposed, by legislation, a government-wide prohibition on the acquisition of ZTE and Huawei products going forward. It is now the law that we prohibit the Federal Government and government contractors from buying or using or providing grants and loans to entities buying or using telecommunications equipment and services provided by the Chinese companies, ZTE and Huawei. Huawei is not ignored here. It is legislatively a prohibition in the bill for future purchases. We understand, also, that there are some Chinese companies in the video surveillance equipment business that also are threats. They also have been banned going forward with respect to government acquisition or government contractor acquisitions. So we have recognized this issue, and we have done, I think, what we could do to ensure that our national security is not compromised in the future by ZTE or Huawei equipment. With that, I suggest that we move forward and pass this legislation, which does a remarkable job of helping the men and women of our Armed Forces. I will save my further remarks for later.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join my chairman, Senator Collins, in requesting that all of our colleagues file their amendments by 1 p.m. tomorrow afternoon so that we can continue to make progress on this bill. Again, I thank the chairman for her great leadership. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. Amtrak's Long-Distance Routes serve as critical connections on our national rail network in 39 States and the District of Columbia. In fact, they are the only intercity trains in 24 States where Amtrak operates. In many parts of the country, Amtrak is the only affordable option for long-distance travel, particularly for the elderly and people with disabilities. Senator Collins and I have worked in a very bipartisan fashion to fund Amtrak's National Network at record levels over the past 2 fiscal years, and this bill provides $1.29 billion to continue those services. Amtrak should use this funding to improve the quality and service of Long-Distance Routes around the country. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as we consider the appropriations minibus this week, I rise to emphasize once again the importance of acknowledging and addressing the threat of interference in our election systems. In particular, Congress must address the continuing threat of Russian hybrid attacks against our democratic institutions. It is difficult to overstate the need to shore up support for democratic institutions here, and around the world, in light of President Trump's recent foreign policy failures. In the last week or so, the President has attempted to derail the NATO summit by insulting our allies and demanding that they immediately double their contributions, thrown a wrench into Brexit negotiations and seemingly endorsed a new Prime Minister for the United Kingdom, and then embraced Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. President Trump stood shoulder to shoulder with President Putin, while the world looked on, and chose to take the word of an autocrat and KGB agent over the assessments of the American Intelligence Community on Russia's interference in our elections. By indulging President Putin's fabrications, he also gave credence to Putin's propaganda on Crimea and Syria, Russia's use of chemical agents against civilians, and its violations of its arms control obligations. This failure to stand up for America's interests and those of our allies and partners was a dereliction of the President's responsibilities that will continue to undermine our national security. President Trump's erratic and divisive actions are undermining that which makes us strong. Our Nation, our allies, and our partners around the world benefit from the world order that the United States created after World War II. We draw strength from our allies and from participation in international institutions. We are not weakened by them; we are strengthened by them. While the President later took low-energy steps to walk back and obfuscate his words on Russian interference, he soon took to Twitter again to aggressively attempt to discredit the investigations into Russian election interference and into his own campaign. Regardless of what President Trump may say or tweet, we must be absolutely clear: The threat of Russian interference in our democracy is not a ``hoax'' or a ``witch hunt,'' and Congress and the States must act now to address the real threat of another foreign intrusion into our elections. Indeed, the findings of the intelligence community's assessment were clear, and I quote: We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. This problem is not behind us. Indeed, President Trump should listen to the national security officials whom he appointed and a Republican- controlled Senate confirmed. The Director of National Intelligence, former Republican Senator Dan Coats, issued multiple public warnings this month, including stating that the warning signs about Russian cyber attacks ahead of our midterm elections are, in his words, ``blinking red again,'' akin to before 9/11. Last week, FBI Director Christopher Wray stated: ``Russia attempted to interfere with the last election and . . . continues to engage in malign influence operations to this day.'' When asked last week whether Russia is still targeting the United States, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said: that the United States ``would be foolish to think [the Russians] are not. They have the capability. They have the will. We've got to be prepared.'' The private sector also validates these concerns. At last week's Aspen Security Forum panel, Tom Burt, Microsoft's Vice President of Customer Security and Trust, told an audience that Microsoft already has detected cyber attacks against three candidates running for Congress this fall. These attacks looked very much like those phishing attacks that Russian agents used against Democrats in 2016. This Chamber faces a stark choice: We can listen to the American Intelligence Community and nonpartisan experts, acknowledge the indictments and guilty pleas of 32 people and 3 companies by the special counsel, and heed the ongoing warnings of Republican national security official--all of whom agree that our democracy is under attack. Or we can trust the words of Vladimir Putin, online trolls and conspiracy theorists, and President Trump--who insist in the face of evidence that Russia is not attacking our democracy. For my part, I don't think that is a very difficult choice. Securing our elections should not be a partisan issue. Election security is national security, and the States need our help to defend our elections against these attacks. The fiscal year 2018 omnibus included $380 million in State election security grants, and all 55 eligible States and territories requested funding. To date, 100 percent of the funds have been requested and 90 percent of the funds have been disbursed. Yet concerns remain. On Monday, 21 state attorneys general, including the Attorney General of my home State of Rhode Island, wrote to the House and Senate to ask for additional assistance to secure the 2018 midterm elections against cyber attacks. I understand Senator Leahy intends to offer an amendment to the Financial Services and General Government title of the minibus legislation this week that would provide $250 million in additional State election security grants. These grants could provide States additional and much needed resources to update voting equipment and secure election systems. I am a cosponsor of this amendment and believe that Congress should pass it and continue to listen to the States and take further steps to ensure that our foundational democratic institutions are secure against foreign actors. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 6147, the so- called appropriations ``minibus,'' which includes the fiscal year 2019 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, as well as three other bills. I am certainly proud to have worked with Chairman Collins. She has put together a thoughtful, bipartisan T-HUD Appropriations bill that reflects the priorities of more than 70 Senators, who provided more than 800 funding or language recommendations. Her leadership and her commitment to fairness and to ensuring that all of our colleagues had the opportunity to help make investments in their States are remarkable and deeply appreciated. We looked at all of our colleagues' suggestions and recommendations. We also received guidance from Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy, and I appreciate their creative and constructive role. As a result, we were able to produce legislation I am remarkably proud of, and I again thank the chairman for her great work. The bill does not include any poison pill riders, which follows the principle established by Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy. This agreement has given the committee space to evaluate the requests of the administration and Congress and to provide funding levels that support national priorities. I strongly urge my colleagues to maintain this effort and not get diverted by very peripheral and narrow interests in the form of what is frequently referred to as ``poison pills.'' Having said that, as the chairman indicated, we welcome amendments and encourage Senators to file them as soon as possible so we can begin to work through them. We have already heard from a few colleagues, and we have several amendments we are preparing to move forward. Substantively, let me share some of the significant accomplishments in this year's T-HUD bill. Consistent with the budget agreement, the bill includes $10.9 billion in budgetary resources above fiscal year 2017 levels to improve our Nation's infrastructure, grow our economy, and spur job creation. The bills include $3.3 billion above the levels provided in the FAST Act for highway programs, including $800 million for a bridge repair and replacement program. On rail and transit, we have maintained Amtrak's funding level from fiscal year 2018, including $650 million for the Northeast Corridor, to make meaningful state of good repair and safety improvements. We have also fully funded the need for Capital Investment Grants and have increased transit formula and competitive grant programs above FAST Act levels. These modes of transportation are essential to reducing congestion, driving economic growth, and improving quality of life throughout the country. I am also pleased that we have a bill before us that protects rental assistance for more than 5 million low-income individuals and families, over half of whom are elderly or disabled, and rejects the administration's harmful proposals to increase rent burdens and work requirements for many of our assisted households, who are already struggling to make ends meet. The bill also provides $285 million for programs that remediate lead- based paint hazards in low-income and assisted housing. This includes $25 million to address lead-based paint hazards in public housing and $45 million for a new Lead Safe Communities Demonstration Program, which has the potential to reduce the cost of remediating lead-based paint hazards in homes. For our Nation's seniors, the bill includes more than $50 million to develop new senior housing and $10 million to modify low-income seniors' homes to make them more accessible. In Rhode Island--and we are not unique--nearly half of our senior households lack an affordable housing option. This funding will be used to develop innovative housing strategies and ensure that our Nation's seniors are able to remain in their communities. It is remarkable. Half of our seniors are without affordable housing, and that number is only going to grow as the demographics of this country continue on their present course. Again, in terms of housing, let me single out an issue where the chairman has been extraordinarily not only conscientious but also courageous. That is homelessness among youth, veterans, and survivors of domestic violence. Chairman Collins has done remarkable work. She has been building on the work we did together on the HEARTH Act to develop innovative, targeted ways to comprehensively address homelessness nationally. I am pleased we are able to include more than $2.6 billion in assistance for communities to continue to provide emergency and community-driven solutions to prevent and end homelessness. Let me also say a few words about the other bills that are part of this minibus package--the Agriculture Appropriations bill, the Interior Appropriations bill, and the Financial Services-General Government Appropriations bill. Each of these bills includes important funding for key programs, and each has steered away from the kind of controversial legislative provisions that would prevent them from moving to the floor. I am pleased the Agriculture bill includes critical funding for nutrition, conservation, and research, including additional funding to help foster the growth of shellfish aquaculture. The Interior bill continues to make important investments in infrastructure through the State Revolving Loan Fund programs for clean water and drinking water, which Senator Crapo and I have championed on a bipartisan basis for many years. The bill highlights the need to establish a maximum contaminant level for PFAS, a category of chemicals that has been used in a wide variety of products, including firefighting foam. Frankly, as Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, I have been told of numerous military facilities across the country where this firefighting foam has been used for 30 or 40 years, and now we are beginning to recognize the potential environmental effects. Dealing with this issue now, or beginning to deal with it, is a very thoughtful approach. In addition to providing critical dollars for our national parks, wildlife refuges, and cultural institutions, this bill also funds the Southeast New England Program for Coastal Watershed Restoration to support collaborative and science-based projects that improve the health of Narragansett Bay and other coastal watersheds in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Finally, the Financial Services-General Government bill makes important investments in our leading financial regulators--the SEC and the CFTC--as well as provides funding for the Community Development Financial Institutions program, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, and the SBA's State Trade Expansion Promotion program. I commend the chair and ranking member of each of these subcommittees for their hard work on these bills. Before I conclude, I note that these smart investments and well- crafted bills would not have been possible without the passage of the 2-year Bipartisan Budget Act, which provided much needed relief from sequester-level budget caps, but that is only a 2-year deal, which expires at the end of fiscal year 2019. With the return of harmful sequester cuts looming in 2020, this bill should serve as a reminder of why we must pursue another bipartisan agreement to provide relief on both the defense and nondefense sides of the ledger. Without such a deal, we will not be able to continue our infrastructure and other investments that make a positive difference in communities across America. Again, let me conclude by thanking, recognizing, and deeply appreciating the chairman for her extraordinary vision and her commitment to those values and those issues that are remarkably demonstrated in this bill: affordable housing for seniors, assistance for the homeless, and ensuring that we have money for infrastructure. This bill shows a remarkable commitment to infrastructure across the country. When the President was campaigning, he talked about a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill. That has not materialized. What has materialized is robust funding for infrastructure in this bill, and that is a direct contribution of the chairman. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as I and many of my colleagues feared, the Trump-Putin summit was disastrous, and their press conference amounted to a disinformation operation in which President Trump played the willing participant. The propaganda, dissembling, and denials are part of Russia's hybrid operations against our country, our allies, and our partners that are an ongoing and persistent threat to our national security. By failing to challenge Putin's fabrications on Russia's interference with U.S. democracy, its annexation of Crimea, its role in Syria, its use of chemical agents against civilians, or its violations of its armed control obligations, President Trump acquiesced in Russia's lies and alternative facts and undermined our security in the process. A low point was President Trump siding with Putin, over our own intelligence community's assessment, on Russian election interference. It was the unanimous judgment of the intelligence community that Putin directed an attack on our 2016 elections with the intent of undermining public faith in our democratic process. That assessment was just reaffirmed unanimously by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Furthermore, last Friday, the Justice Department indicted 12 Russian military intelligence officers on charges of ``large-scale cyber operations to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.'' Despite being briefed on these developments, President Trump chose to side with Putin on election interference. It is unconscionable that an American President, standing on foreign soil, chose to play Putin's press secretary rather than take the word of his own intelligence officials--career professionals who put their lives on the line for the safety and security of all Americans. President Trump's words hurt our national security. Nations or potential sources may no longer trust the United States. They may hold back in fear that their highly classified secrets could be revealed to Russia, a foreign adversary, as Trump has done in the past. Yesterday, President Trump also made a moral equivalency between the United States and Russia. This is an unfathomable and dangerous break from the actions of past Presidents of both parties. President Trump's actions this week and throughout his Presidency have undermined the once bedrock belief around the globe that the United States is a beacon of hope and reliability. Further, moral equivalency is a longtime Russian narrative used by Putin to justify his continued oppression of his people and suppression of democratic impulses within Russia. On a more basic level, President Trump is undermining that which makes us strong. The world order that the United States created after World War II is something we have benefited from for decades. We draw strength from our allies and from participation in international institutions. The United States is not weakened by them; we are strengthened by them. The mere act of the two Presidents sitting down together was a victory for Putin. Instead of taking this opportunity to talk tough and call Putin out for his misdeeds, President Trump delivered rewards without gaining any changes in Russia's behavior. This adds up to weakness, acquiescence, and more. Nothing about Russia's behavior has changed. Putin is still in Crimea. He is still propping up Assad's murderous actions in Syria. He is still interfering in the domestic politics of the West and undermining people's faith in the democratic process. This is not theoretical. Director of National Intelligence Coats warned that Russian cyber attacks are threatening our government and our financial institutions. He used very explicit language to say that, akin to before 9/11, the warning signs of Russian aggression are ``blinking red again.'' Yet, instead of recognizing that threat, denouncing attacks from Russia, and developing a whole-of-government solution to counter the threat, Trump is cozying up to Putin. In light of President Trump's dereliction of his responsibilities, I urge my Republican colleagues to stand up for the security and integrity of our democracy. Some of my colleagues have condemned President Trump's performance yesterday, but clearer and more concrete steps must be taken. Republicans must reject President Trump's weak and damaging views on foreign policy. What we saw this week and throughout this Presidency is an aberration that is unsustainable, and this course must be corrected soon. Words of regret or sadness for a missed opportunity are not sufficient in the wake of yesterday's display of weakness and narcissism. Republicans should join with Democrats to pass legislation to protect the Mueller investigation and to ensure that the investigation is permitted to follow the evidence wherever it leads and bring this matter to a conclusion. Republicans should join with Democrats to hold hearings and get testimony about the President's trip and particularly what he promised Putin during their private meeting. Republicans should join with Democrats in calling on the President to fully implement the sanctions act against Russia for its numerous nefarious activities. Republicans should join with Democrats and demand that President Trump be interviewed by Special Counsel Mueller under oath. Finally, I urge the Trump administration to at long last issue a comprehensive strategy coordinating our military, diplomatic, law enforcement, financial, and all other instruments of U.S. national power to counter Russian malign influence, as called for in last year's NDAA. We are waiting a year for a legislative mandate of this Congress to provide such a report. Time is running out. This is not a partisan issue. It is long past time for the President to denounce the Kremlin's behavior and take steps to mount a whole-of- government response to deter it in the future. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this would instruct the conferees of the National Defense Authorization Act conference to support our traditional relationship with NATO, reaffirm our commitment to work with them, recognize their work with us as they deploy personnel in Afghanistan, as they deploy personnel to training missions in Iraq, and, as members of NATO armed forces, have given their lives to help us in Afghanistan. It recognizes our traditional, long-term support for NATO, and it looks forward to continued support. I urge adoption.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I commend Senator Cornyn and Senator Feinstein for their extraordinary work on this vital legislation and urge complete support. I yield the floor, and I yield back all time.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk, and I ask that it be read.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I have submitted a motion to instruct conferees on the National Defense Authorization Act regarding the critical importance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for the security of the United States, for our protection. I join my colleagues this afternoon in support of the motion, which sends an important message to our allies, our partners, and our adversaries that the United States is unwavering in its support of Europe--a Europe free from the threat of external aggression--and in support of the rules- based international order that has promoted international security for decades. The motion to instruct provides important guidance at this critical juncture before the NATO summit in Brussels and the U.S.-Russia summit in Helsinki. The motion instructs the Senate conferees on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 to ensure that the final conference report on the NDAA reaffirms the ironclad U.S. commitment under article 5 to the collective defense of the alliance. It reaffirms the U.S. commitment to NATO as a community of shared values, including liberty, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. The motion also calls for the United States to pursue an integrated approach to strengthen European defense as part of a long-term strategy that uses all elements of U.S. national power to deter and, if necessary, to defeat Russian aggression. It also calls on the Trump administration to urgently complete a comprehensive, whole-of-government strategy to counter Russian malign influence activities, as required by last year's National Defense Authorization Act, and to submit that strategy to Congress without delay. We are still awaiting--for over a year now--this strategy. Finally, the motion reiterates U.S. support for the rules-based international order and for expanding and enhancing our alliances and partnerships, which are some of our greatest security advantages. No one should ever doubt the U.S. resolve in meeting its commitments to the mutual defense of the NATO alliance. Unfortunately, this motion has become necessary because some of our closest allies have come to question the U.S. commitment to collective self-defense. President Trump has at times called the alliance ``obsolete'' and has denigrated NATO as being ``as bad as NAFTA,'' which he strongly opposes. Our allies are starting to wonder whether they can rely on the United States to come to their defense in a crisis. Recently, German Foreign Minister Maas said the ``world order that we once knew . . . no longer exists.'' He added that ``old pillars of reliability are crumbling'' and that ``alliances dating back decades are being challenged in the time it takes to write a tweet.'' To make matters worse, the administration's eagerly scheduled summit meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, on the heels of the NATO summit in Brussels, only adds to fears that President Trump does not share the security concerns of our European allies and partners. Instead of concentrating on rebuilding alliance cohesion and unity after his divisive diplomacy at the G7 meeting in Canada, President Trump appears intent on orchestrating another photo op with an authoritarian ruler who oppresses his people and threatens the security of the United States, its allies, and partners--this time in the person of President Putin. Meeting with Putin now is, in my view, ill-advised, and President Trump appears to be ill-informed about the threat Russia poses to the security of the United States and that of our allies and partners. The National Defense Strategy, which this administration authored and promoted, refocused our attention from international terrorist groups to our two major challenges, Russia and China. Yet the President, in his actions and words, appears to be undercutting his own National Defense Strategy. In addition, I am deeply concerned that President Trump is meeting one-on-one with a former KGB spymaster like Putin. President Trump's ``attitude'' will not be enough to challenge Putin over Russia's aggression against the United States and our allies. Let's be clear. President Putin is not ``fine.'' As recently reaffirmed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, on which I sit, President Putin directed an attack on our 2016 elections with the intent of undermining public confidence in our democratic process. To this day, Russia continues, according to administration intelligence officials, to target elections in democratic countries, including the upcoming midterm elections in the United States. Russia's use of hybrid operations--including disinformation, propaganda, corruption and financial influence, hidden campaign donations, and even chemical attacks on civilians in foreign countries--fundamentally threatens our security and the security of our allies. And Russia's ongoing aggression against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of neighboring countries, including Ukraine, is unacceptable and violates international norms. In light of this Russian threat, President Trump should take the opportunity at this important NATO summit to lead the alliance toward greater solidarity and cohesion. Unfortunately, President Trump's statements ahead of the summit point in the opposite direction. I understand and share the concern of many across the political spectrum that our NATO allies are not spending enough on their own defense, and many are not on track to meet the pledge to be spending 2 percent of GDP on national defense by 2024. This issue has been raised by previous administrations, including the Bush and Obama administrations. But, ultimately, the United States participates in NATO because we believe the transatlantic partnership is in the U.S. national security interest and not because other countries are paying us for protection. We must look at the whole picture of allied contributions to NATO operations and to the strategic competition with Russia and China that I mentioned was the singular point of the National Defense Strategy approved by President Trump after being prepared by Secretary of Defense Mattis. The whole picture includes the following: Our allies stood with us following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack, invoking for the first and only time, as my colleagues have said, the obligation under article 5 of the NATO treaty for collective self-defense. As of the end of this year, 7 of the 28 non-U.S. NATO members will meet the 2 percent of GDP pledge on defense spending. In addition, 18 members have put forth a credible plan to get to 2 percent of GDP by 2024. Since 2014, all NATO members have halted the decline in their national defense spending, and total defense expenditures have increased by more than $87 billion. U.S. foreign military sales to NATO members are up significantly in the past few years, from less than $5 billion in 2015 to an estimate of nearly $40 billion in 2018. Our NATO partners provide significant host nation support to the tens of thousands of U.S. troops stationed in Europe, including Germany's $51 billion in military infrastructure and $1 billion annually in host nation support to the 33,000 U.S. troops stationed in Germany. NATO members have deployed thousands of troops on NATO operations in Afghanistan, Kosovo, the NATO training mission in Iraq, and elsewhere, with many making the ultimate sacrifice. NATO soldiers have died serving side by side with U.S. soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen in defense of the fundamental values we share, and we cannot ignore that. The motion to instruct recognizes that in strategic competition with near-peers Russia and China--again, the singular feature of the new National Defense Strategy of this administration--one of the United States' greatest competitive advantages is our alliances and partnerships and the benefits they bring to the fight. I urge my Senate colleagues to support the motion to instruct. This is not a partisan issue. It is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. It is a national security issue. In fact, the motion supports a number of provisions in the Senate version of the fiscal year 2019 NDAA proposed by my Republican colleagues on the Armed Services Committee that reaffirm the U.S. national security interest in the NATO alliance. At this critical juncture before the summits in Brussels and Helsinki, Congress, as a coequal branch of government, has an opportunity to lead, just as Congress demonstrated leadership in overwhelmingly passing the Russia sanctions bill as part of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA, by a vote of 98 to 2. That bill sent a clear message to Russia that there are costs to its malign activities and that Russia's behavior must change. Similarly, strong Senate support for the motion to instruct will send an important message to our allies, our partners, and our adversaries. It will demonstrate solidarity with our NATO allies and partners and support for the vision of a Europe whole, free, and secure. It will send a message of support for the rules-based international order and the need for Russia to stop its disruptive behavior. It sends a message to President Putin that his behavior is not fine, that there is a continuing cost to be paid for Russia's malign activities, and that he will not succeed in dividing the NATO alliance. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to send a strong message of U.S. support for NATO by voting later today for the motion to instruct. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Blunt in reintroducing the Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, by 2030, there will be a shortage of up to 120,000 physicians. Over one third of the shortage, up to 49,300, will be in primary care. Individuals and families living in underserved areas--urban and rural--will continue to be those most disadvantaged by this shortage. The passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 ushered in an expansion of access to health insurance for millions of Americans. While we fight to protect these gains and work to improve the system further, many Americans are going to the doctor for preventive health care for the first time. In order for this to be successful, we must expand our health care workforce to ensure that we have enough health care professionals to seamlessly accommodate the newly insured as they join the ranks of those who already have coverage. In addition, as the baby boomers age, we will need health care professionals to care for them as well. According to the Pew Research Center, roughly 10,000 baby boomers will become eligible for Medicare every day through 2030. The Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act would authorize programs that would grow the overall number of health care providers, as well as encourage providers to pursue careers in geographic and practice areas of highest need. Building on the success of the National Health Service Corp (NHSC) Scholarship and Loan Repayment Program and the State Loan Repayment Program, our legislation would establish a State scholarship program. Like the NHSC State Loan Repayment Program, States would be able to receive a dollar-for-dollar match to support individuals that commit to practicing in the state in which the scholarship was issued after completing their education and training. At least 50 percent of the funding would be required to support individuals committed to pursuing careers in primary care. The States would have the flexibility to use the remaining 50 percent to fund scholarships to educate students in other health care professions with documented shortages with the approval of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act would also authorize grants to medical schools to develop primary care mentors on faculty and in the community. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, graduating medical students consistently say that one of the most important factors affecting the career path they choose is role models. Building a network of primary care mentors in the classroom and in a variety of clinical settings will help guide more medical students into careers in primary care. The legislation would couple these mentorship grants with an initiative to improve the education and training offered by medical schools in competencies most critical to primary care, including patient-centered medical homes, primary and behavioral health integration, and team-based care. It would also direct the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to study and make recommendations about ways to limit the administrative burden on providers in documenting cognitive services delivered to patients. Primary care providers treat patients in need of these services almost exclusively, and as such, spend a significant percentage of their day documenting care. That is not the case for providers who perform procedures, such as surgeries. This IOM study would help uncover ways to simplify documentation requirements, particularly for delivering cognitive services, in order to eliminate one of the potential factors that may discourage medical students from pursuing careers in primary care. Providers across the spectrum of care recognize that this bipartisan legislation is part of the solution to addressing the looming health care workforce shortage and have lent their support, including: the Alliance for Specialty Medicine, the American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Osteopathic Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the Society of General Internal Medicine. I look forward to working with these and other stakeholders as well as Senator Blunt and our colleagues to pass the Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act in order to help ensure patients have access to the health care they need.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Blunt in reintroducing the Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, by 2030, there will be a shortage of up to 120,000 physicians. Over one third of the shortage, up to 49,300, will be in primary care. Individuals and families living in underserved areas--urban and rural--will continue to be those most disadvantaged by this shortage. The passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 ushered in an expansion of access to health insurance for millions of Americans. While we fight to protect these gains and work to improve the system further, many Americans are going to the doctor for preventive health care for the first time. In order for this to be successful, we must expand our health care workforce to ensure that we have enough health care professionals to seamlessly accommodate the newly insured as they join the ranks of those who already have coverage. In addition, as the baby boomers age, we will need health care professionals to care for them as well. According to the Pew Research Center, roughly 10,000 baby boomers will become eligible for Medicare every day through 2030. The Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act would authorize programs that would grow the overall number of health care providers, as well as encourage providers to pursue careers in geographic and practice areas of highest need. Building on the success of the National Health Service Corp (NHSC) Scholarship and Loan Repayment Program and the State Loan Repayment Program, our legislation would establish a State scholarship program. Like the NHSC State Loan Repayment Program, States would be able to receive a dollar-for-dollar match to support individuals that commit to practicing in the state in which the scholarship was issued after completing their education and training. At least 50 percent of the funding would be required to support individuals committed to pursuing careers in primary care. The States would have the flexibility to use the remaining 50 percent to fund scholarships to educate students in other health care professions with documented shortages with the approval of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act would also authorize grants to medical schools to develop primary care mentors on faculty and in the community. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, graduating medical students consistently say that one of the most important factors affecting the career path they choose is role models. Building a network of primary care mentors in the classroom and in a variety of clinical settings will help guide more medical students into careers in primary care. The legislation would couple these mentorship grants with an initiative to improve the education and training offered by medical schools in competencies most critical to primary care, including patient-centered medical homes, primary and behavioral health integration, and team-based care. It would also direct the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to study and make recommendations about ways to limit the administrative burden on providers in documenting cognitive services delivered to patients. Primary care providers treat patients in need of these services almost exclusively, and as such, spend a significant percentage of their day documenting care. That is not the case for providers who perform procedures, such as surgeries. This IOM study would help uncover ways to simplify documentation requirements, particularly for delivering cognitive services, in order to eliminate one of the potential factors that may discourage medical students from pursuing careers in primary care. Providers across the spectrum of care recognize that this bipartisan legislation is part of the solution to addressing the looming health care workforce shortage and have lent their support, including: the Alliance for Specialty Medicine, the American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Osteopathic Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the Society of General Internal Medicine. I look forward to working with these and other stakeholders as well as Senator Blunt and our colleagues to pass the Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act in order to help ensure patients have access to the health care they need.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am proud to reintroduce the Career and Technical Education for Adult Learners or the CTE for All Act with my colleague, Senator Baldwin. Our legislation addresses the critical need to expand educational opportunities for working adults with low academic skills. The need for strengthening the skills base for working adults continues to grow. Increasingly, middle-skill and sustainable wage jobs require education beyond high school. Yet, according to U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey data, 12 percent (24 million) of working age adults have less than a high school diploma. Recent Department of Education data show that only 5 percent of adults with less than a high school diploma have any type of postsecondary certificate, certification, or license compared to 27 percent of adults overall. Moreover, an estimated 36 million adults in the U.S. have low skills with nearly one in six having low literacy skills and one in three having low numeracy skills. Our ability to grow the economy and decrease income inequality will depend, in large part, on our commitment to providing education and training programs to low-skilled adults. These workers are concentrated in fields such as construction, health care, manufacturing, and hospitality. Expanding career and technical education opportunities to these workers could enhance their career trajectories and strengthen their earning potential, fueling economic productivity and growth for the future. Unfortunately, according to the U.S. Department of Education, roughly half of low-skilled workers are not engaged in formal or non-formal learning opportunities. The CTE for All Act aims to change that by ensuring that there are pathways for adult learners in career and technical education programs. Specifically, our legislation will ensure that programs funded under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act align with adult education programs and industry sector partnerships authorized under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. The CTE for All Act requires consultation with the state director for adult education in the development of the statewide plan for career and technical education. The bill calls for career and technical education programs to include low-skilled adults among the special populations targeted for outreach and support and allows states to report separate performance indicators for adult career and technical education students. The legislation makes adult education providers that offer integrated education and training programs eligible to receive career and technical education funding. Additionally, the legislation encourages career and technical education programs to include work experiences for their students of all ages. We have worked with the adult education community and other stakeholders in developing this legislation. We are pleased to have the support of the National Council of State Directors of Adult Education, the Commission on Adult Basic Education, the National Skills Coalition, and the National Coalition for Literacy. As a Nation, we are at our best when every person--no matter their starting point--has the opportunity to develop their skills and reach their potential. The CTE for All Act will strengthen the ladder of opportunity for adult learners who work hard every day to provide for their families. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and work with us to include these provisions in the reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act.