Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as Americans, we take inspiration from those who have answered the call to serve, whether in defense of our Nation abroad or to strengthen our communities at home. This willingness to make common cause with our fellow citizens and serve a purpose greater than ourselves is a hallmark of our Nation. We should ensure that every American who wants to serve has the opportunity to do so. To that end, I am introducing the America's Call to Improving Opportunities Now (ACTION) for National Service Act with Senators Coons and Blumenthal. Our legislation calls for elevating the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) to a cabinet-level agency and supporting up to one million national service positions annually. Since 1994, over one million individuals have served through the AmeriCorps program. Additionally, roughly 245,000 seniors over the age of 55 volunteer annually through the Senior Corps programs. These individuals have addressed critical community needs in education, economic development, health, and many other areas. They have come to their fellow citizens' aid in times of national disaster, including thousands who have been deployed in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. Unfortunately, we have not created the capacity to support all those who want to serve. Rhode Island has embraced service. Providence is one of the top AmeriCorps cities in the nation. Across our State, nearly 4,200 AmeriCorps and Senior Corps volunteers are helping students succeed in school, ensuring veterans get access to the services they need, supporting seniors in their communities, protecting the environment, and addressing other critical needs. With additional resources and support, Rhode Island volunteers could accomplish so much more. We strive to honor those who serve. Even more importantly, we invest in the education and professional development of those who have sacrificed and given so much to our Nation. Developing the talents of our most committed citizens pays life-long dividends. Our investment in the GI Bill not only honors our service members, but also enriches our Nation. Similarly, the education awards for those who have served through CNCS programs have economic impacts beyond the individuals who earn them. Just as we came together on a bipartisan basis to expand and enhance the GI Bill benefits, now is the time to increase the education award for those who serve at home. The ACTION for National Service Act will ensure that national service volunteers who complete two full terms of service earn an education award equivalent to four years of in-State tuition at a public university. Those who are willing to serve should not have to carry a heavy burden of student loan debt to achieve their educational goals. Today, as our communities face challenges in a host of areas, we need more people to participate in national service, and we need more partners to support them. As such, the ACTION for National Service Act will establish a National Service Foundation to encourage private sector and philanthropic investment in expanding national service opportunities. All AmeriCorps members take a pledge to get things done for Americans, to make communities safer, smarter and healthier, and to bring us together. Today, I ask my colleagues to join us in pledging to ensure that all who want to answer the call to serve can do so by cosponsoring the ACTION for National Service Act.

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 oppose the Congressional Review Act resolution repealing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's forced arbitration rule. At a time when millions of Americans are suffering the consequences of abusive practices by major financial institutions--including the massive consumer fraud by Wells Fargo and the exposure of up to half of the national population's personal information due to inadequate cyber security by Equifax--it is simply wrong to give immunity to bad corporate actors against lawsuits by the very customers they harmed. I urge my colleagues to think about the millions of Americans who still don't know all the facts about whether they are victims of one of these or other major banking scandals. They deserve the chance to gather the facts and hold the responsible parties accountable. This anticonsumer resolution strips away those victims' constitutional first line of defense against lending fraud and permits corporations more opportunities to take advantage of consumers. We have known for years that forced arbitration clauses harm the financial security of those who are most vulnerable to lending scams. Companies slip these clauses into the fine print of contracts for everything from loan applications to purchases on a smartphone. Let's be clear. Even if every American had the time to read and understand the fine print of every contract they sign, most of these contracts by major financial institutions are one-sided, and the consumer has no power to bargain the terms in the fine print. With these in place, consumers who learn their bank or lender has overcharged or defrauded them also learn quickly that they have signed away their right to take the corporation to court. Instead, they must choose between dropping their claim or going it alone in an arbitration process that is clearly and notoriously stacked in favor of the corporation. Forced arbitration makes it easier for predatory lenders to avoid the consequences for taking advantage of consumers. This reality is even more outrageous when we consider the fact that predatory lenders view servicemembers, military families, and veterans as prime targets for financial scams. The CFPB has noted that servicemembers are attractive targets because, among other things, they are required to maintain good finances, their pay is consistent, they often relocate, and many are just starting to make significant financial decisions. The Department of Defense is also well aware that military bases draw predatory lenders selling bad or illegal loans, which is one reason why the Department of Defense recently issued new rules banning forced arbitration for many loans covered by the Military Lending Act. But these rules still don't cover the full range of financial products that may be used to take advantage of military consumers and their families. That is why I have worked for years with Senator Lindsey Graham on legislation to ban forced arbitration clauses that waive or limit rights under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The CFPB rule bans many of these and other forced arbitration clauses that disproportionately harm servicemembers and their families. While the CFPB has provided data to support the arbitration rule's positive effects for servicemembers, we should also listen to the servicemember community. Their strong support for this rule speaks volumes. The CFPB rule's supporters include the Military Coalition, which consists of 32 military advocacy groups, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and associations representing the interests of members of the Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps. Moreover, in August, the National Convention of the American Legion adopted a resolution opposing legislation to repeal the CFPB forced arbitration rule because, among other reasons, it ``is extremely unfair to bar servicemembers, veterans, and other consumers from joining together to enforce statutory and constitutional protections in court.'' Simply put, servicemembers and veterans don't want this CRA, and they are watching this vote closely. Mr. President, forced arbitration is the prime example of a rigged system whereby powerful corporations and interests play by different sets of rules than average Americans. When a normal person defrauds another person, that person is entitled to seek a resolution in court. It is wrong for us to allow major corporations to create their own justice system that serves their own interests at the expense of American consumers, families, servicemembers, and veterans. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and to permit the CFPB arbitration rule to go into effect. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the budget resolution for fiscal year 2018. Let me say that consideration of this budget resolution seems surreal, not only because of the timing--coming, as it does, 3 weeks into the fiscal year--but also because of the real challenges the United States faces today. We have important work to do. At this moment, three States and two U.S. territories are struggling to recover after experiencing significant natural disasters. The resources we are providing are simply not sufficient. In addition, sadly and tragically, Las Vegas just experienced the worst mass shooting in American history, breaking the record that was set only last year in the tragic mass shooting in Orlando, but there is no serious bipartisan and comprehensive effort to address gun violence. After President Trump's reckless efforts to sabotage the Affordable Care Act, Congress needs to act to stabilize private insurance exchanges. I think that we were all pleased, as I was, to see Senator Alexander and Senator Murray take strong steps to do that over the last few days. It appears, however, that they are once again being undermined by the President. Next week, the President is officially going to declare the opioid crisis as a national emergency, which is what we all have recognized over several years, but declarations mean nothing without there being the resources to help. This is an emergency, and we need to provide those resources now, but given this budget resolution before us, those resources will not be available. States are already taking steps to reduce healthcare coverage for kids under the Children's Health Insurance Program and services through community health centers because we have not been able to act in time to reauthorize these critical initiatives. We face international crises in Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, which are inflamed, unfortunately, every time the President tweets or comments about these issues. Before December 8, the President and Congress need to come to an agreement to provide relief from sequester funding caps for defense and non-defense priorities. The President and Congress need to act immediately to undo the crisis that has been created by the President's Executive order on DACA, which will put thousands of Dreamers at risk of deportation and have an adverse impact on our economy. This budget addresses none of these challenges. In fact, it so weights tax cuts to the rich and deficits that we will not have the resources with which to deal with any one of these issues. Instead, a week after the President took steps that will cause millions to lose their private health insurance, this budget will pave the way for trillions of dollars in cuts to healthcare offered under Medicare and Medicaid. Last week, the President basically tried to strangle the Affordable Care Act. Now the goal is to undo Medicare and Medicaid, and that is astounding. The real goal behind that is not just to undo these critical programs for every American; the real goal is to provide trillions more in tax cuts that will overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest. The majority will say that the budget only lays out a broad fiscal plan and that none of the details have been set, but we have seen this play before. It starts with tax cuts for all, but it will end with nothing short of a historic transfer of wealth from low- and middle- income Americans to those who are prospering the most in this country. It starts with the promise of a balanced budget, but it will end with greater deficits. It will start this time when, after a long and difficult recovery from the economic crash of the Bush administration, the economy is finally moving forward with stock market highs, low employment, and low interest rates. Nothing about our current economic situation demands massive, deficit-busting tax cuts, particularly to the wealthiest Americans. Indeed, it is instructive to look back to the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. These tax plans were also paid for with trillions of dollars of debt because the Nation was newly at war. These plans also overwhelmingly favored the top 1 percent of Americans. We were told then that the tax benefits would trickle down to the working class and pay for themselves. I opposed these tax plans because I didn't believe that would occur, and, in fact, it didn't occur. Despite the substantial benefits for those at the top, overall economic growth from 2001 to 2007 was weaker than average. Median household income fell 2.7 percent while prices and poverty continued to rise. With weak regulation and oversight, this fiscal policy ushered us into the great recession. Now the GOP is poised to do the same thing yet again. Just for contrast, in the early 1990s, under President Clinton, Democrats took tough votes to raise revenue and rein in spending. Despite predictions to the contrary, the economy took off in one of the biggest economic booms in history, and at the same time we turned budget deficits into the first surplus in a generation. There are lessons in that experience. There are no shortcuts to restoring fiscal order. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves, and you can't balance the budget while cutting revenue. So how does the majority promise to turn straw into gold this time? By pairing $5.8 trillion in cuts from basic services, including Medicare and Medicaid, with massive deficits and rosy revenue assumptions. With these in place, the GOP says that it can balance the budget and cut taxes by $1.5 trillion. Never mind the fact that the Republican tax cuts to the wealthy will likely cost more than $1.5 trillion, and never mind that this budget assumes absurd cuts to nondefense programs and leaves spending for defense at sequester levels, which we all recognize are inadequate. But even if the numbers are phony and built on loose, unrealistic assumptions, won't most Americans be getting a substantial tax windfall under this plan? Sadly, no. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center's analysis of the available information on the GOP tax plan, about 80 percent of the tax cuts will go to the top 1 percent, increasing their after-tax income by about 9 percent. Nearly half of that money will go to the top one-tenth of 1 percent. Meanwhile, the bottom 80 percent of American wage earners will get only 13 percent of the tax cuts, and many hard-working families with children could actually see their taxes go up. Based on the Tax Policy Center's analysis, most Rhode Islanders who get a tax cut will receive only $190 or less out of this deal. That is less than the cost of a week's worth of groceries for a family of four. Yet most Rhode Islanders and most Americans stand to lose much, much more due to the inevitable cuts in investments like Medicaid, Pell grants, Title I, health research, and public infrastructure. Most middle-class families in my State depend on programs like these. To send their children to school, they need Pell grants; to make sure that their elderly mother or father is well cared for, they need the assistance of Medicaid for nursing homes. So that $190 tax cut will be nothing compared to the losses they will incur in the cost of college for their children, the cost of healthcare for their parents who are just struggling to get by. On the other hand, people on the top end of the bracket will get a tax cut large enough to buy a new Mercedes. If the recent past is any indication, they will pocket that money, invest it, or send it overseas. That money doesn't trickle down, and working Americans at the losing end of the tax bill will not see it in their paychecks. The American people deserve a better deal than this budget resolution offers. I know President Trump and the leadership on the other side of the aisle are desperate for a legislative win. They have spent an entire year trying to ram through the partisan TrumpCare healthcare bill that would upend our entire healthcare system, kick over 30 million Americans off of their insurance, and make massive cuts to Medicaid, harming our most vulnerable citizens, including seniors, children, and people with disabilities. The process, the tactics, and the product alienated even Members of their own party and Americans across the political spectrum. After having failed with TrumpCare and with all of the other challenges we face, the majority leadership has set in this budget blueprint a deadline of November 13 for committees to produce tax cut legislation. All the other business we need to do must wait until we cut taxes for the wealthy. I know there is room for compromise and that there are Members of good will on both sides who are actively working to address many of the real challenges I mentioned earlier, but tax cuts for the rich shouldn't be on our to-do list, let alone at the top of the list, as it is today. One of the things we should be standing up for is our men and women in uniform by providing the revenue we need to support them. But when it comes to providing that revenue, this resolution takes a knee and gives revenue away to millionaires and billionaires. This is a truly rigged process. Its only purpose is to fast-track tax cuts for the rich and cut funding to healthcare and other key initiatives that most Americans count on. For that reason, I will oppose this budget resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Corporate Management Accountability Act, which request 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, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, William Dudley, 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 2008, ``banks globally have paid $321 billion in fines . . . for an abundance of regulatory failings from money laundering to market manipulation and terrorist financing, according to data from Boston Consulting Group.'' Unfortunately, despite these fines, we continue to see disappointing behavior at our financial institutions, 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, nearly half the State may have been affected by the cybersecurity breach at Equifax. Given these and other breaches and lapses, it is clear that many financial institutions have a long way to go in rebuilding the trust of Rhode Islanders and the American people. At the same time, it is also clear that more must be done than simply fining and penalizing financial institutions at the corporate level. 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 for the New York Times in its White Collar Watch column, ``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 introducing today is one attempt at helping to solve this problem. The bill 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 U.S. PIRG, Public Citizen, and Americans for Financial Reform. Companies must do a better job of aligning executive incentives so that they are motivated to put their shareholders, and not themselves, first. 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 introducing the Corporate Management Accountability Act, which request 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, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, William Dudley, 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 2008, ``banks globally have paid $321 billion in fines . . . for an abundance of regulatory failings from money laundering to market manipulation and terrorist financing, according to data from Boston Consulting Group.'' Unfortunately, despite these fines, we continue to see disappointing behavior at our financial institutions, 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, nearly half the State may have been affected by the cybersecurity breach at Equifax. Given these and other breaches and lapses, it is clear that many financial institutions have a long way to go in rebuilding the trust of Rhode Islanders and the American people. At the same time, it is also clear that more must be done than simply fining and penalizing financial institutions at the corporate level. 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 for the New York Times in its White Collar Watch column, ``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 introducing today is one attempt at helping to solve this problem. The bill 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 U.S. PIRG, Public Citizen, and Americans for Financial Reform. Companies must do a better job of aligning executive incentives so that they are motivated to put their shareholders, and not themselves, first. I urge all my colleagues to join this legislative effort to hold senior executives accountable for their actions.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the latest attempt from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to upend our health care system. They have been trying to sell this as a new and better health care bill, but in fact they somehow have managed to come up with something even worse than the previous TrumpCare bills. It would repeal the Affordable Care Act, gutting key protections for people with preexisting conditions and ending Medicaid as we know it. I want to recognize some of my colleagues, however, on the other side of the aisle who already stood up to this effort, because no matter how many changes have been made to gain the support of Senators, this bill would be devastating to every State, including my home State of Rhode Island. Senate Republicans are trying to hide the impact of the bill, potentially forcing a vote before the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is even able to publish a full score and analysis of the bill, including estimates for how many people would lose coverage and how healthcare costs would be affected. Late yesterday, we received a preliminary estimate from CBO saying that, similar to previous TrumpCare bills, this proposal would leave millions more Americans without health insurance because of massive cuts to Medicaid. We will not see a more detailed score for weeks. Yet the majority is attempting to rush this through in order to use budget rules that expire on Saturday that enable passage of this bill with just 51 votes. Fortunately, a number of nonpartisan organizations are publishing data on the latest bill, and they all agree that this bill would have a similar impact as the previous TrumpCare bills. Tens of millions of Americans would lose coverage, State budgets would be decimated, and costs would increase--especially for those with preexisting conditions, who would be priced out of the market entirely. According to one of these organizations, Avalere, Rhode Island is slated to lose $3 billion by 2027, and the cuts only get worse from there. Medicaid would be cut drastically, meaning our most vulnerable citizens would lose access to health care, including children, people with disabilities, and seniors. Over 60 percent of nursing home residents in Rhode Island access care through Medicaid, and half of Medicaid spending is on these long-term care services. It would become impossible to protect these programs from the cuts projected under this bill. In fact, States would be forced to cut not only health care but also education and infrastructure and other priorities to make up or try to make up--and I think ``try to make up'' are better words to use--the difference. This would be nothing short of a crisis in every State in this country. We have already spent so much time this year having this fight--time we could have spent working across the aisle to improve health care, to end sequestration, and to ensure a stable Federal budget to improve our economy. In fact, after the efforts to pass TrumpCare failed just 2 months ago, Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee joined together in a bipartisan fashion to come up with a bill that would improve our healthcare system and lower costs for everyone. Significant progress on this effort has been made. However, by resurrecting this TrumpCare debate, we are again on the brink of voting on whether to kick millions of Americans off of their health insurance. With this effort, Republicans are taking our health care system hostage again, as deadlines approach this week for finalizing insurance rates for the next year. Health insurance commissioners and other experts have already said that the instability in Washington has caused rates to increase. Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue down this destructive path. What is especially egregious is that in addition to the jettisoned ACA stabilization efforts, we also need to extend funding for other critical bipartisan health care priorities, such as the Children's Health Insurance Program and the community health centers, whose Federal funding expires in just a couple of days. In fact, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee had come to a bipartisan agreement to extend funding for CHIP for 5 years, providing stability and assurances for States and families across the country. However, that work is now on hold, just like the critical ACA stabilization effort. We must continue to make our voices heard and show the majority that this is not what the American people want. They want us to work together to strengthen health care, increase access, and keep costs down. The enormous outpouring of citizen opposition and health care experts criticizing TrumpCare over the summer was a very powerful statement about what the American people--my constituents and people across the country--believe should be the path forward on health care. As my colleagues work to make last-minute changes to the bill and conceal the real impacts by refusing to hold substantive hearings and rushing new versions of the bill to the floor with little or no warning, my constituents are not fooled. They continue to write to me, urging me to keep up the opposition to TrumpCare. Just a week or two ago, I heard from Barbara in Middletown, RI. Her mother has Alzheimer's diseases and relies on Medicaid for long-term care. Her sister has Down syndrome and has recently been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease as well. She also relies on Medicaid for her health care. This new proposal, just like the previous proposals, would be devastating to Barbara and her family. I urge my colleagues to really think about who would be impacted by this legislation. Whether or not you like ObamaCare or voted for it 7 years ago, this latest TrumpCare bill is not the solution. I will continue to oppose these efforts and hope to work with my colleagues to improve our health care system and lower costs for everybody. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. As we approach the final vote on the fiscal year 2018 national defense authorization bill, I would like to make a few closing comments. When we began considering this bill last week, Senator McCain and I were interested in returning to regular order and having debate and votes on any amendment that needed a vote. We actually started off very well. While I disagreed with Senator Paul's amendment to sunset the current authorization for the use of military force, I am pleased we were able to follow regular order on his amendment and have a debate. It is my hope that we can use this as a step to restore regular order going forward and work together, along with Senator Paul, in drafting a new AUMF that more precisely addresses the threats we face and resolves the issue, which is very critical, that Senator Paul has raised; that is, updating the AUMF. After the Paul amendment, however, we were unable to come to an agreement on further votes. As a result, several issues that are important to both sides were not fully considered. On the Democratic side, Senators Baldwin, Stabenow, and Donnelly had very important amendments that would have ensured important protection for American workers and that our servicemembers receive high-quality, domestically produced equipment. In addition, Senator Durbin had an important amendment that supports the world-class medical research DOD conducts and has a profound impact on the health of our servicemembers and citizens alike. Senator Warren would have liked a discussion on the INF Treaty, and Senator Gillibrand was interested in a full debate on protections for military personnel who are transgender. As I indicated, I also know there are Members on the other side of the aisle who also had important issues they wanted to debate. I regret we were not able to have those debates and votes. I am pleased, however, that we are able to include several dozen agreed-upon amendments in this bill from both Democrats and Republicans which will strengthen the legislation. In the end, this bill represents a strong bipartisan effort to provide the military with the resources they need and the support they deserve. Moving forward, more work needs to be done. It is clear we need to find a sustainable, equitable path forward that will end sequestration and provide the additional resources needed for our current readiness shortfalls. I look forward to working together to continue to address the needs of the Department and our servicemembers. I would like to close by thanking Senator McCain in my remarks about the NDAA for his leadership in guiding this bill through our committee markup process and the floor. I believe this bill truly exemplifies Senator McCain's unrivaled dedication to the men and women of our Armed Forces. His firm hand and unwavering resolve for a bipartisan approach were invaluable in achieving a bill that reflects the priorities of many Members on both sides of the aisle. Additionally, I would like to thank the committee staff who worked tirelessly over many weeks to make this bill a reality. I thank the majority staff director, Chris Brose, and his staff for their hard work and commitment to a bipartisan process. I would also like to thank my staff for their expertise and dedication to creating the best bill possible--Jody Bennett, Carolyn Chuhta, Jon Clark, Jonathan Epstein, Jorie Feldman, Jon Green, Creighton Greene, Ozge Guzelsu, Gary Leeling, Kirk McConnell, Maggie McNamara, Bill Monahan, Mike Noblet, John Quirk, Arun Seraphin, and Elizabeth King. Finally, I would like to thank the floor staff, without whom none of this could be accomplished. I must say, having completed a truly bipartisan process using regular order, I am disappointed to hear that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to bring back the partisan efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and its protections for people with preexisting conditions and decimate Medicare as we know it. We have already spent so much time this year having this fight--time we could have spent working on a bipartisan basis to improve our health care system and lower costs. We voted decisively in July to reject the partisan bill. With these votes, Senators on both sides of the aisle decided we would return to regular order and work toward bipartisan health care solutions that could get at least 60 votes in this body. As I have highlighted, this kind of bipartisan approach is why we have been successful in bringing the NDAA to the floor each year, and Senators Alexander and Murray have been doing just that with respect to the HELP Committee. They have had four hearings over the last two weeks, with witnesses from both parties, from Governors to health insurance commissioners, to leaders in the industry. I have great confidence in my colleagues and their ability to craft a bipartisan bill to improve the ACA that a majority of Senators could support. This is a bipartisan, inclusive process, and I should note, it is undertaken by one of the two committees that have jurisdiction for health care. So for my Republican colleagues to now decide, after this critical work is already underway, that we are going to scratch those efforts and return instead to a partisan process, in which not even Republican Senators have had the opportunity to fully review the bill, make changes or even get analysis of the bill, I think that process is wrong. Let's not be fooled by the new effort. The legislation would have the same effects as the other versions of TrumpCare we saw rejected. We have heard the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on the latest version of TrumpCare. This is not the right process. It is not representative of the legislative process. I would urge my colleagues to reject this approach and, rather, follow the example I think we have tried to set in NDAA--a bipartisan, regular process, in which amendments are offered by both sides, in which debate is undertaken, in which we come to a conclusion based on 60 votes and move forward to improve the country, particularly to protect the men and women in the armed services. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Klobuchar, Brown, King, Franken, and Whitehouse in introducing the Weekend Voting Act. This bill makes voting in Federal elections easier and more accessible through one simple change: moving Election Day from Tuesday to the following Saturday and Sunday in November of an election year. We know from surveys and common sense that Tuesday voting stands in the way of greater voter participation. In 1845, Congress set Tuesday as Election Day because it was the easiest day for farmers--then travelling by horse and buggy--to make it to the polls in the course of their regular Tuesday trips to bring goods to market. Tuesday voting has no such benefit for farmers, or anyone else, in the 21st Century. It does, however, force many Americans to choose between their workday and family responsibilities, and participation in our democratic process. According to the Pew Research Center, voter turnout in the United States regularly lags behind other developed countries, many of which hold elections on one or more days during the weekend. According to U.S. Census data, the most consistent reason Americans give for not voting is that they are too busy to get away from their daily lives to make it to the polls. The Weekend Voting Act would give Americans the ability to vote during times that make better sense for them. Rather than on a Tuesday, polls would stay open during the first Saturday and Sunday after the first Friday in November of an election year. States would retain full autonomy to continue to offer alternatives to Election Day voting, such as early voting or voting by mail, and States are encouraged to give special consideration to accommodate weekend religious practices. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Weekend Voting Act so that more Americans can take part in our democratic process by voting at times that work for them.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Klobuchar, Brown, King, Franken, and Whitehouse in introducing the Weekend Voting Act. This bill makes voting in Federal elections easier and more accessible through one simple change: moving Election Day from Tuesday to the following Saturday and Sunday in November of an election year. We know from surveys and common sense that Tuesday voting stands in the way of greater voter participation. In 1845, Congress set Tuesday as Election Day because it was the easiest day for farmers--then travelling by horse and buggy--to make it to the polls in the course of their regular Tuesday trips to bring goods to market. Tuesday voting has no such benefit for farmers, or anyone else, in the 21st Century. It does, however, force many Americans to choose between their workday and family responsibilities, and participation in our democratic process. According to the Pew Research Center, voter turnout in the United States regularly lags behind other developed countries, many of which hold elections on one or more days during the weekend. According to U.S. Census data, the most consistent reason Americans give for not voting is that they are too busy to get away from their daily lives to make it to the polls. The Weekend Voting Act would give Americans the ability to vote during times that make better sense for them. Rather than on a Tuesday, polls would stay open during the first Saturday and Sunday after the first Friday in November of an election year. States would retain full autonomy to continue to offer alternatives to Election Day voting, such as early voting or voting by mail, and States are encouraged to give special consideration to accommodate weekend religious practices. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Weekend Voting Act so that more Americans can take part in our democratic process by voting at times that work for them.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I again thank the chairman for his leadership. It has been critical, as has been demonstrated throughout the process during our subcommittee hearings and our committee hearings, but even before that, the chairman insisted upon hearings that were comprehensive so, as we prepared for this NDAA, we had a sense of the threats we faced, the resources we needed, and, as a result, as the chairman pointed out, we were able to send to the floor, with a unanimous vote, a very strong defense bill. Since that time, working together, we have been able to incorporate over 100 amendments which improve the bill. As the chairman pointed out, we are still working on issues we hope we can bring forward for either adoption or, through debate, a vote, and I hope we can do that. Again, as the chairman pointed out, this is a rare instance of regular order--of the committee report coming to the floor, moving to it by a strong vote, taking up and working to get amendments that are not controversial into the package, and then going ahead and, we hope, setting up debate, discussion, and votes on more difficult and challenging issues. I was encouraged by Senator Schumer's comment that we can anticipate a date for final passage of this bill. We are confident we will have a national defense bill leaving the Senate and going to conference now. The final outline of that bill is still to be determined, and I hope we can add more to it. That is a very principled process of talking back-and-forth. Again, I don't think any of this would have been done without the leadership of the chairman and his insistence that we adhere not only to regular order but that we don't forget this is ultimately about the men and women who serve us overseas. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. I thank the chairman.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Portman and Warner be added as cosponsors to the Reed amendment No. 939, relating to a strategy for countering malign Russian influence.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to turn to discuss my amendment to counter malign Russian influence. Amendment No. 939, sponsored by Senators McCain, Portman, Cardin, Brown, Warner, Whitehouse, Durbin, and myself, would advance U.S. national security interests by requiring the President to submit to Congress a strategy for countering the threat of Russia's influence activities intended to undermine democracy in the United States, Europe, and across the world and to disrupt the global international order. The amendment would require the President to provide Congress a strategy that is comprehensive, using every tool at our disposal to counter Russia's malign activities. The strategy would direct actions across the whole of government, including the following areas: security measures, the strategy would include actions to counter Russian hybrid warfare operations, building the capabilities of allies and partners to identify, attribute, and respond to Russian malign activities, short of conflict, and supporting the NATO alliance and other security partnerships against Russian aggression; on information operations--the strategy would seek to counter Russia's use of disinformation and propaganda in social media as well as traditional media and to strengthen interagency mechanisms for coordinating and effectively implementing a whole-of-government response to Russian active measures; in the area of cyber, the strategy would require steps to defend against, deter, and when necessary respond to malicious cyber activities by the Kremlin, including the use of offensive cyber capabilities consistent with policies specified elsewhere in the act; in the political and diplomatic arenas, the strategy would be required to set out actions to enhance the resilience of U.S. democratic institutions and infrastructure and to work with countries vulnerable to malign Russian influence to promote good governance and strengthen democracy abroad; in the area of financial measures, the strategy would address the corrupt and illicit Russian financial networks in the United States and abroad that have facilitated and Russia's malign influence; and finally, on energy security, the strategy would include steps to promote the energy security of our European allies and partners, reducing Russia's ability to use energy dependence as a weapon of coercion or influence. The amendment would also require that the administration's strategy be consistent with prior legislation relating to Russia's malign activities, including the Russian Sanctions Act that recently passed with overwhelming support in Congress; the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014, and the Magnitsky Act of 2012. This amendment would fill an important gap in our current approach to relations with Russia. To date, the Trump administration has been unwilling, for whatever reason, to articulate and implement an appropriate response to the threat to our democratic institutions and security posed by Russia's malign influence activities. This amendment would address this critical national security requirement. It is both appropriate and critically important that this requirement for a strategy to counter Russian malign influence be amended to the National Defense Authorization Act because ultimately this is fundamentally an issue of national security. The administration's failure to acknowledge the insidious interference by Vladimir Putin and his cronies for what it really is--an attack by a foreign adversary on Western democracies and the institutions underpinning the global order--has real implications to our national security. The administration's lack of action to counter this malign influence only encourages the Kremlin to continue its aggression against the United States and its allies and partners. The Russians know they cannot win in a conventional war, so they have adapted their tactics asymmetrically to leverage their strengths. These tactics pose a real threat, and we need to appropriately posture ourselves, using all tools of statecraft, to counter Russian malign influence. Before President Obama left office, he ordered an intelligence review of Russian interference in U.S. elections. On January 6, the U.S. intelligence community released a report on its findings on Russian interference in our democracy. This report included the consensus view of all 17 intelligence agencies, including the CIA, the National Security Agency, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Among the key findings were President Putin ``ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election''; ``Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency''; ``Russia's influence campaign was multifaceted, combining old-fashion Russian propaganda techniques with cyber espionage against U.S. political organizations and mass disclosure of government and private data:; ``Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards''; and ``Russia's state-run propaganda machine contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.'' These findings were made public on January 6--over 8 months ago--with the additional warning from our intelligence experts that ``Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.'' Furthermore, with each passing week more evidence comes to light about the depths to which the Kremlin went to interfere with our democracy. Just last week, we learned that a Kremlin-linked troll factory bought $100,000 worth of Facebook ads which were further disseminated through bot networks as part of Russia's attempt to influence our 2016 Presidential election. The ads traced back to 470 fake accounts and pages on Facebook and mostly focused on pushing politically divisive issues such as gun rights, immigration, LBGT rights, and racial discrimination. Further reporting by the New York Times laid out in lurid detail how these fake accounts amplified other tactics of Russian malign influence and ginned up web traffic to DCLeaks--the site where Russian military intelligence first posted hacked emails. The New York Times also reported that hundreds or thousands of fake Twitter accounts regularly posted anti-Clinton messages and used Twitter to draw attention to hacked materials during last year's campaign. Cybersecurity firm Fireye concluded that many of these Twitter accounts were associated with one another and linked back to Russian military intelligence. This is just one tactic of influence that Russia is using as part of the wide ranging campaign it is waging against us. Again and again, Russia has used the range of coercive tools at its disposal--including political pressure; economic manipulation; collaboration with corrupt local networks; propaganda, deception and denials; and, increasingly, military force--to try to intimidate democratic countries and undermine the further integration of NATO, the European Union, and other Western institutions. It is clear that we need a strategy and we need it soon; yet what is surprising and disturbing is that the White House has failed to direct that a plan be developed to counter this Russian malign threat and to prepare our country for renewed Russian interference in the upcoming 2018 and 2020 elections. Time is running out. We are now 8 months into the Trump administration. During this time, numerous administration officials have publicly reinforced the findings of the intelligence community's January assessment of the threat posed by Russia's malign influence activities. On May 11, Director of Central Intelligence Mike Pompeo said he hoped that we learn from Russian activity in the 2016 election and be able to more effectively defeat it. On May 14, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, ``I don't think there's any question that the Russians were playing around in our electoral processes.'' On May 23, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats stated, ``There clearly is a consensus that Russia has meddled in our election process . . . Russia's always been doing these kind of things with influence campaigns but they're doing it much more sophisticated through the use of cyber and other techniques than they did before.'' On June 13, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis stated, ``We're recognizing the strategic threat that Russia is provided by its misbehavior.'' On July 9, 2017, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley stated, ``Everybody knows that [the Russians] are not just meddling in the United States' election. They're doing this across multiple continents, and they're doing this in a way that they're trying to cause chaos within the countries.'' On August 5, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster described the threat from Russia ``as a very sophisticated campaign of subversion and disinformation and--and propaganda that is ongoing every day in an effort to break apart Europe and to pit political groups against each other to sow dissension . . . and conspiracy theories.'' Yet, despite the assessment from the intelligence community and these acknowledgements from the President's own national security team that Russian malign influence and interference in our 2016 election and the elections of our close allies in Europe pose a national security threat, the President has yet to direct that actions be taken to counter Russian malign influence. As far as we know, the Oval Office has not ordered the national security team even to formulate a strategy to address these pressing threats from Putin and his cronies. Time is running out. In fact, 8 months in, and despite the assessments of his Cabinet, the President can't even clearly admit that the threat is coming from Russia. On January 11, President Trump stated, ``As far as hacking, I think it was Russia. But I think we also get hacked by other countries and other people.'' On April 30, President Trump said, ``It's very hard to say who did the hacking . . . I'll go along with Russia. Could've been China, could've been a lot of different groups.'' On May 11, President Trump said, ``If Russia or anybody else is trying to interfere with our elections, I think it's a horrible thing and I want to get to the bottom of it.'' On July 6, just prior to his meeting with President Putin, President Trump said, ``It could have very well been Russia but it could well have been other countries and I won't be specific but I think a lot of people interfered. Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure.'' Let's stop and think about that for a minute. ``No one really knows for sure''? That this is even a question runs completely counter to the informed assessments of the entire intelligence community and the President's own national security team. It is time President Trump admits what the rest of us know to be true. We also know, from multiple administration officials' testimony to Congress, that the President has not directed his Cabinet or senior staff to work on a strategy. On May 11, when our colleague and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee Senator Warner asked DNI Coats where we stand in terms of preparation against a future Russian attack, he couldn't think of a single thing. He replied, ``Relative to a grand [Russia] strategy, I am not aware right now of any--I think we're still assessing the impact.'' On June 8, when our colleague Senator Heinrich asked whether the President had inquired about what the FBI Director, our government, or the intelligence community should be doing to protect America against Russian interference in our election system, former FBI director James Comey stated, ``I don't recall a conversation like that.'' When I asked Defense Secretary Mattis on June 13 whether the President had directed him to begin intensive planning to protect our electoral system against the next Russian cyber attack, he was not able to point to any guidance indicating that the President recognizes the urgency of the Russian threat or the necessity of preparing to counter it next year during the midterm elections. On June 21, officials from the Department of Homeland Security testified that 21 States were potentially targeted by Russian Government linked hackers in advance of the 2016 Presidential election. When I asked these officials whether the President had directed them to come up with a plan to protect our critical elections infrastructure, they also responded no. On June 28, Representative Sherman asked U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley whether she had even talked to the President about Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. She replied that she had not talked to the President about the subject. On July 7, in a press conference at the G-8 summit after the President's meeting with President Putin, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated, ``I think the relationship [with Russia]--and the President made this clear as well--is too important, and it's too important not to find a way to move forward.'' It is long past the point where anyone can deny that Russia interfered in our election and the elections of our allies and partners in Europe. This should have been a priority on day 1. We need to formulate a strategy and take action across the whole of government to counter the threat from Russia. We cannot just ignore this problem or sweep Kremlin attacks on our elections and those of our close European allies under the rug and move forward. We need a strategy to counter Russian malign influence that leverages all our tools of power across the government. Though President Trump may be unwilling to confront or condemn Russian interference in our democracy, we in Congress have been willing and able to take a stand to put pressure on Russia and push back against Russian malign influence. As you are all aware, we took an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 98-2 this summer and passed long-overdue Russian sanctions. That was an important first step, but more must be done. We must act because the Trump administration has refused. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Members from both sides of the aisle in sponsoring this amendment. As former FBI director James Comey said when he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, ``It's not a Republican thing or Democratic thing. It really is an American thing. They're going to come for whatever party they choose to try and work on behalf of . . . They're just about their own advantage. And they will be back.'' This amendment will ensure the administration does take appropriate action. It will direct the President to formulate a comprehensive strategy to ensure that, when Putin and his minions come back in 2018 and 2020, we will have appropriate measures in place to detect, deter, and counter this serious threat to our democracy. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this important and necessary amendment.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I want to join the chairman with respect to noting the progress we have made with respect to 100 amendments. They have been bipartisan. They have been carefully weighed by the staff. We are still continuing to work together to see if there are additional amendments we can incorporate before we conclude this bill. I think the amendments have strengthened the bill. I think it does reflect the bipartisan effort. Also, along with the chairman, we would have liked to have been able to do more and have more debate, more votes, but at the end of the day, we are going to have a national defense authorization bill that responds to current threats, that responds to the stresses and demands on our personnel across the globe, and also be well positioned to go into conference and hopefully further improve this legislation in the conference process. Once again, I will say this is in large part the result of Chairman McCain's leadership--creating an atmosphere of bipartisan cooperation, of thoughtful debate, and doing it in a way that brings out the best in all of us. I thank him for that. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin has pointed out one of the shortcomings in this process, which is that we have not had a series of amendments on the floor to vote on. Through the chairman's leadership, we have, as he has indicated, cleared 103 amendments on a bipartisan basis. We think we have legislation that is important for the Nation, particularly for our men and women in uniform. Senator Baldwin raises an extremely important question. ``Buy American'' is not only for the people we represent all across the country but for the quality of goods and services that our men and women in uniform will receive. I thank her, and I join with her in the frustration of not having a vote, despite the progress we have made in so many other areas. This is something that both the chairman and I would like to see remedied in the next national defense debate on the floor. As the chairman pointed out, this will be an issue at conference. I know Senator Baldwin will not cease her efforts. She has been incredibly tenacious in pushing forward this ``Buy American'' provision on behalf of her constituents and all of our constituents. I do, in fact, support this provision, and I will work to my utmost to see that we can move this issue forward. I appreciate very much the fact that it will be considered in conference. Again, I think we have done a lot over the last several days with the leadership of Chairman McCain. I regret that we can't wrap up this legislation with several votes on issues, which each side would like to see, but I commit myself to work with the Senator from Wisconsin to see if we can move this ``Buy American'' provision forward.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield back the time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Alisa Beyninson, a Government Accountability Office detailee to the Armed Services Committee, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask if the Senator from Kansas would modify the request and I be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes before Senator McCain?

Mr. REED. Mr. President, first, let me once again commend the chairman for working collaboratively and cooperatively to include in this legislation over 100 amendments that have improved a very good piece of legislation. It also represents the input of the vast majority of our colleagues in the Senate. But I think, too, that we should have opportunities to debate and vote, which was typical in previous considerations of the National Defense Authorization Act. We are still considering the possibility of such votes, and I hope we can reach an appropriate conclusion to have votes and debates. But to this point, again, let me thank the chairman for his leadership and take his wise advice to think seriously about how we proceed forward with this legislation. Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. REED. Madam President, Senator Paul has been relentless in doing something that has to be done, which is the revision of the AUMFs from 2001 and 2002. Yet there is sort of a simple notion that you cannot replace something with nothing, and we have nothing. This is 6 months of more time when, in the last 16 years, even at the request of a President, we have not been able to come together as a Senate. I don't know where the House is on this, but I think that it is equally befuddled in providing the kind of specific language we need for an AUMF. This would be a different debate and a different vote if we were to have before us an actual AUMF that would immediately supersede the existing authorities. Without such an AUMF, we are going to cause confusion, and we are going to cause disruption among our forces and our allies. In my having spent a little bit of time in the Service, when there is a possibility that in 6 months you will have to cease operations, you begin planning almost immediately for those operations. By the time we get around to actually even considering this--since I do not think there are any plans to do it immediately--we could see 3 or 4 of those months evaporate. With each passing day, the concerns about redeployment and repositioning and authorities become more pressing to the military. Not only that, but even if they are sophisticated in understanding that it is not yet the law of the United States, our allies will read this--will see it--as a signal that we are weakening in our cooperation. What we have seen over the last several months, in Iraq particularly, has been effective Iraqi indigenous forces in close cooperation with U.S. special operations and other forces, and they have made progress. They will have political blowback in Baghdad and Kabul, especially if this provision passes. Then I think, very adroitly, our adversaries will take advantage of this. The newspapers and the social media that they control--and, unfortunately, they control a great deal in all parts of the world--will make this very simple: the United States to leave, the United States restricting authority. Those are the practical consequences. Again, this would be an entirely different debate and an entirely different vote, I think, if we were looking at a real replacement for the AUMFs of 2001 and 2002. So I would urge my colleagues to think not just about the constitutional imperatives--the congressional authorities to declare war, the Presidential authorities under article II--but to think about the practical and almost immediate consequences to those in the field, to our allies, and also of the possible ways in which this act could be used by our adversaries. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the fiscal year 2018 national defense authorization bill, which was passed unanimously out of the Armed Services Committee on July 10. First, I would like to acknowledge Chairman McCain, whose leadership on this committee and in this body has been invaluable, indeed historic. His contribution, his indefatigable energy, his commitment to the men and women who serve us in uniform is something that has shaped this legislation and indeed shaped our country profoundly. Chairman McCain ensured the committee's thoughtful consideration of the President's request, which produced bipartisan legislation that I believe will improve the readiness, capabilities, and quality of life of our military personnel and their families. I wish to highlight some key aspects of the bill, beginning with a central national security issue--North Korea. Kim Jong Un is intent on developing a nuclear weapon that can be mounted on the head of a missile and shot at the U.S. homeland. Unfortunately, there is no set of military options that lead to a quick and certain strategy on North Korea. Diplomatic engagement that leads to a freeze of North Korea's missile and nuclear programs is perhaps our best path forward. In order to bring North Korea to the table, we must reinforce our ballistic missile defense systems and demonstrate that all options, including military options, remain on the table. To that end, this bill authorizes additional funding above the budget request to make upgrades to our Ground-based Midcourse Defense system to protect the homeland and to buy 24 additional THAAD interceptors, a regional defensive system that we have deployed to the Republic of Korea. This bill also enhances our security cooperation in the Pacific by authorizing the Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative, which will help strengthen our posture in the region and provide additional support and security assistance to our partners and allies. Another significant national security issue is the escalating threat from Russia's maligned influence activities. The nature and extent of this threat was brought home with Russia's interference in our 2016 elections, but our allies and partners in Europe have been dealing with this threat for many years now. This bill contains significant resources, through the European Deterrence Initiative and the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, to reinforce our military presence in Europe and build the capacity of the NATO alliance to counter Russia's efforts to intimidate and coerce its neighbors. The bill takes critical steps to prepare for any attempt by Russia to attack our democracy in next year's midterm elections. One provision states that it is the policy of the United States to respond, using all instruments of national power, to any and all cyber attacks that intend to cause significant harm to the Nation, including undermining U.S. democratic society. This is a clear message to Vladimir Putin that Kremlin influence is unacceptable and will be strongly answered. A second provision, which is an amendment I offered that was accepted in committee, would require the Secretary of Defense to create a task force to integrate all Department organizations responsible for what is called ``information warfare'' in order to achieve a unified and coherent capability to counter, deter, and conduct strategic information operations. The Department of Defense must play a vital role developing strategies and executing operations to counter and respond to Russia's aggression against America and our close allies in Europe. But efforts by the Department of Defense are not enough. It is essential to have a whole-of-government approach if we are to deal effectively with the multifaceted threat posed by Russia, as well as China, North Korea, Iran, and others against the West. We need to develop comprehensive and specific strategies, taking advantage of all the instruments of national power and the contributions of friends and allies to deter and respond to aggression in all of its forms. We need to bring together the authorities and capabilities of law enforcement, homeland defense, the military, and the intelligence community to confront cyber threats that recognize no organizational or functional boundaries. At the same time, we must improve how we work with the private sector, which owns and operates the critical infrastructure on which our democracy, our society, and our prosperity depend. This bill advances our goal of ensuring that we have the strategy, organization, and resources necessary to counter the complex challenge posed by Russia's maligned activities and the maligned activities of other state and nonstate actors. This legislation also provides needed authorities and funding for our military personnel who are engaged in operations abroad. Through the support of our partners on the ground, we continue to make significant gains against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. However, our partners require sustained support to clear the remaining ISIS strongholds and ensure a sustainable security environment going forward. Therefore, this bill authorizes $1.8 billion to support the Iraq and Syria Train and Equip Programs. The bill also includes $4.9 billion for the Afghan Security Forces Fund to assist our Afghan partners as they continue to take the fight to the enemy while also working diligently to build and professionalize their security forces. This is a critical investment for the stability of the region and the security of the international community. With respect to our services, we have taken steps to improve their capabilities, their readiness, and their ability to fight and win. With respect to our Navy and Marine Corps, this bill represents a continuation of the efforts that are so important for improving their ability to address the challenges of this new century. The proposals would begin significant efforts to improve the readiness of Navy and Marine Corps aircraft, ships, and weapons systems. It is clear that high operational tempo, coupled with limited resources for training and maintenance, contributed to the recent tragedies with the USS John S. McCain, the USS Fitzgerald, and the V-22 crash off the coast of Australia. First, we must recognize the sacrifice of sailors and marines and pay our respects to their families for the sacrifices they have given to this Nation. That sacrifice continues to impress all of us, with the contribution of everyone wearing the uniform of the United States, their dedication to their country, and their calls for renewed commitment by ourselves to work together to achieve the ends of this great Nation. We must prioritize resourcing for our military so we can ensure that our servicemembers have access to the best equipment and the best training possible so they can conduct these missions safely in spite of the very difficult challenges we face. This bill provides significant investments in our next-generation Virginia-class submarines to ensure our Navy remains dominant under the sea. It authorizes multiyear procurement contract authority and advanced procurement for up to 13 Virginia-class submarines. In addition, the bill adds $750 million for economic order quantity material for the Virginia-class Block V multiyear procurement program. Meeting today with the Secretary of the Navy, he once again reiterated that the Virginia-class submarine program, together with the Ohio replacement program, and the ballistic missile submarine program are the highest priorities of the U.S. Navy. This bill supports those high priorities. The Navy will be able to use this funding to expand the industrial base across the second-tier and third-tier contractors, anticipating an increase in production needed to increase submarine force levels. An additional $450 million is authorized to increase support for expanding the industrial base or for advance procurement to buy an additional Virginia-class submarine in fiscal year 2020. The bill provides authority for another multiyear contract for the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program and provides the Navy the authority to buy as many as 15 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. It also adds $1.8 billion to buy a third destroyer in fiscal year 2018. The bill also authorizes $1 billion for incremental funding for construction of an amphibious ship and more than $1.2 billion for several auxiliary ship programs, including five surface connectors and one expeditionary sea base. With respect to naval aviation, this bill also recommends significant increases for multiple programs. Notably, it authorizes 10 additional F/A-18 fighters, 10 F-35 fighter variants, 4 additional KC-130J tankers, and 6 additional P-8A submarine hunters. With respect to the Air Force, the bill also makes significant increases in authorization by adding an additional $10.4 billion for Air Force programs to purchase 14 additional F-35A fighters, 12 MC-130J aircraft, 3 additional KC-46A tankers, and authorizing funding for replacement of the A-10. With respect to the Army, I am pleased that this bill also makes a number of important investments in Army modernization. It authorizes full funding for the Department's request for AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters. In addition, the bill supports the Army's unfunded requirement for additional Apaches by including $312.7 million to procure additional helicopters. Likewise, the bill fully supports the Army's request for modernizing Army ground combat vehicles, including M1 Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and the Stryker combat vehicle. The bill also includes funding to support Army unfunded requirements, including recapitalizing Abrams tanks and procuring a fourth upgraded set of Double V-Hull Strykers. Finally, this bill makes targeted reductions in Army network modernization programs, since Army Chief of Staff General Milley plans to make a decision soon on the way forward with regard to these programs. Once a decision has been made, it is my hope that the Army will provide the committee with a detailed plan for network modernization, to include details on the funding necessary for this approach. Our Special Operations Forces remain at the ``tip of the spear'' of our efforts to counter violent extremist groups. The bill fully funds the U.S. Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, and includes an increase of approximately $85 million to help address unfunded requirements for additional intelligence collection, precision strike, undersea mobility, and communications capabilities. Additionally, the bill includes new authority designed to support the ability of our special operators to work with partners to counter irregular warfare, or so- called gray zone challenges, posed by our adversaries. The bill authorizes funding to modernize our triad of nuclear-capable air, sea, and ground delivery platforms--the bedrock of our defense posture against an existential threat. The B-21 heavy bomber is authorized at the requested level to continue engineering, manufacturing, and development to be fielded in the mid to late 2020s. This heavy bomber will replace the dependable but aging B-52s, which were built in the 1960s. The committee is working with a team at the Government Accountability Office for rigorous oversight on the new bomber program. When the B-52 retires in the 2040 timeframe, its airframe will be approaching 100 years old, and the grandchildren of the original pilots will be flying the plane. Turning to the area of undersea deterrence, in order to maintain a sea-based deterrent, the current fleet of 14 Ohio-class submarines must be replaced starting in 2027 due to the potential for hull fatigue. By then, the first Ohio submarine will be 46 years old--the oldest submarine to have sailed in our Navy in its history. The third leg of our triad, our land-based ICBMs, will not need to be replaced until the 2030s. We have authorized continued development of a replacement for this responsive leg of the triad, which acts as a counterbalance to hostile ICBMs. I know there is concern about Russia's violation of the Intermediate- Range Nuclear Force Treaty, which is a foundational arms control treaty from the late 1980s. This committee has received classified briefings on the actions taken by Russia, and they are indeed serious. I urge all of my colleagues to request these classified briefings if they have not done so. While some have called for the United States to perform developmental testing of systems that are noncompliant with the treaty, this committee has pursued a cautious and measured approach of looking at what kinds of research within the confines of the treaty we can perform if called upon to counter this threat. Again, let me stress that I do not support withdrawing from the treaty, and our best approach is to bring the Russians back into compliance. With respect to energy use, which is an important aspect to the bottom line in the operational capabilities of our military, the bill contains several provisions that enhance how the Department pursues energy resilience, which directly supports readiness and mission assurance of our warfighters. Additionally, this bill contains a requirement for a defense threat assessment and master plan on climate- related events and a comprehensive strategy and technology roadmap on how the Department can more effectively use water. In the area of science, technology, and innovation, I am pleased that this bill authorizes increases in funding for science and technology research efforts by over $375 million above the President's request, including a total of $2.3 billion for university research programs. These programs are critical to ensuring that our military retains its technological battlefield superiority in areas like cyber security, unmanned and robotic systems, high-energy lasers, space, and hypersonics. The bill streamlines the ability to access expertise and technologies in our Nation's universities and small businesses, whose expertise and innovation is the cornerstone of the technologies on which our military depends. Additionally, it continues efforts to strengthen the capabilities of our defense labs and test ranges, including removing redtape that inhibits their effectiveness, and supporting their efforts to build world-class technical workforces. The bill also authorizes two new innovation offices, the Strategic Capabilities Office and the DIUx Silicon Valley office, with special authorities to hire the unique program management talent they need to execute their innovative activities. In the area of acquisition reform, I am pleased that the bill continues efforts to streamline procurement practices to support the Department's efforts to obtain the best goods, technologies, and services on a timely basis at fair and competitive prices. The bill includes provisions from Senator Warren and Senator Blumenthal to ensure that the Pentagon works with contractors to safeguard worker conditions. The bill also makes significant and needed changes to the way the Department buys, evolving toward more agile and effective commercial acquisition practices. These new practices should enable the Department to build and buy the most modern software and IT for our weapons systems, platforms, and business systems. The bill also includes a provision from Senator McCaskill that will provide more transparency and require more deliberate planning in the use of service contractors in order to control this rapidly growing part of the Pentagon budget. In the area of Pentagon management, I am pleased that the bill includes provisions to improve financial stewardship to help the Pentagon get a clean audit opinion on its financial books. The Pentagon has been trying to obtain a clean audit opinion for 27 years, and the continual failure to do so calls into question its ability to steward the large funding increases proposed in this bill transparently and efficiently. This bill accomplishes much on behalf of our servicemembers and the Department of Defense. It authorizes a 2.1-percent pay raise for all servicemembers and reauthorizes a number of expiring bonus and special pay authorities to encourage enlistment, reenlistment, and continued service for Active-Duty and Reserve component military personnel. The bill permanently extends the Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance-- scheduled to expire next year--provides $25 million for supplemental impact aid, and $10 million in impact aid for severe disabilities, including $5 million available for the Secretary to direct to schools to address areas with higher concentration of disabled military children. This legislation also enhances military family readiness by addressing the shortage of childcare workers and increasing flexibility for military families undergoing permanent change of station. A provision in the bill also addresses the Marine United situation by making the nonconsensual sharing of photos and videos of an individual's private anatomy or of sexually explicit conduct involving the individual a criminal offense under the UCMJ, even when the initial taking of the photo or video was consensual. Once again, this bill includes authorization for a needed package of healthcare reforms, including modest increases to working-age retiree healthcare cost shares, while ensuring that the cost share remain far below those required by civilian plans. It also requires the Department to establish a Medicare Advantage demonstration program for TRICARE For Life beneficiaries that will achieve better healthcare outcomes for beneficiaries with chronic health conditions as well as cost savings for the beneficiaries and for the Medicare TRICARE Programs. During floor consideration of this bill, Chairman McCain and I would like to offer an amendment that will authorize a new BRAC round. I know this topic concerns many of our colleagues, but I believe it is in necessary to allow the Department to gain efficiencies and savings by shedding excess infrastructure. In drafting this amendment, Chairman McCain and I worked to include the lessons learned and address the common critiques from previous BRAC rounds. The amendment would use the most recent National Military Strategy and an elevated force structure to determine if there is any excess capacity. Any recommendations submitted by the Secretary would have to be certified by CAPE, require third-party validation by the GAO, provide greater transparency to communities by publishing on the Federal Register, and any list of closures would have to be affirmatively approved by the President and Congress. Again, I know this is a difficult issue, but I believe we must make difficult decisions as stewards of our Department of Defense and taxpayers' dollars, and I look forward to the debate. To my disappointment, the bill also includes a series of provisions that add unnecessary redtape to successful medical research efforts funded by the Pentagon. The program has funded research over the years. These programs have led to new treatments for burn victims, new transplant procedures, and rehabilitation techniques for TBI and PTSD patients, and a score of other medical innovations. These Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs have been independently reviewed by experts at the National Academies of Science and found to be world class, scientifically rigorous, innovative and effective. At a time when the President is proposing drastic and harmful cuts to NIH's medical research budget, I do not think we should intentionally throw bureaucratic hurdles in the way of researchers trying to cure debilitating and life-threatening diseases. I hope we can remove these provisions before we pass the bill. I am also concerned about several provisions in this bill that would weaken important protections for American defense manufacturers, including small businesses in my State that supply advanced technologies and systems to the military. I note that existing sourcing laws include provisions that protect the Pentagon taxpayers from paying unreasonable and unfair prices, and these laws serve to help protect American jobs. We need to ensure that we have an innovative, reliable, trusted, and secure domestic industrial base as we grow the military and respond to contingency operations and surge production requirements. Finally, I would like to say a few words about the funding for defense. The bill reported out of committee includes $610.87 billion in discretionary spending for defense base budget requirements and $60.2 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations. It also includes $21 billion for Department of Energy-related activities, resulting in a topline funding level of $692 billion for discretionary national defense spending. While many of us agree that the Department requires the resources, these funding levels do not adhere to the spending limits mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011. If enacted and funded at these levels, sequestration would be triggered, thereby wiping out about $88 billion through across-the-board cuts. This would be a very complicated situation. We would be giving money on one hand and taking it back with the other, literally. We must come to address the insufficient funding caps in the BCA, and we must do so for both defense and nondefense accounts. Since the Budget Control Act was enacted in 2011, we have made repeated incremental changes to the discretionary budget caps for both defense and nondefense accounts. We have done so in order to provide some budgetary certainty to the Department of Defense and also to domestic agencies. I believe that if defense funds are increased, funding for domestic agencies must also be increased because they, too, are suffering from the same severe budget that the Defense Department has suffered over the last several years. In addition, at this point, I think all of us acknowledge our national security is broader than simply the accounts in the Department of Defense. It is the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, State Department, and many other agencies that contribute to our national security. In fact, in the wake of Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma, we have seen the Centers for Disease Control dispatched, EPA individuals dispatched to evaluate, in the Harvey situation, threats to the environment, and in case of Irma, to try to prevent the threats by being deployed before the storm actually struck. So our national security, our public safety, all these issues involve not just the Department of Defense but the whole array of government enterprise. We understand that the well-being of our Nation--and what our men and women in uniform are fighting for--depends on funded and functioning domestic agencies, not just the Department of Defense. For example, as I have said before, with these two hurricanes, tens of thousands of Americans have needed help, these Federal agencies have come forward, and I will mention them: the Centers for Disease Control, Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, the Small Business Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Social Security Administration. Those are just a handful. Providing for the security of Americans requires the whole of government, and it should all be funded fairly. We should remain responsible stewards of taxpayers' money while also ensuring we provide sufficient funds to meet the needs of our Nation. Let me conclude by once again thanking Chairman McCain and my colleagues for working thoughtfully and on a bipartisan basis to develop this important piece of legislation. I would also like to thank the staff who worked tirelessly on this bill throughout the year. I look forward to a thoughtful debate on the issues that face our Department of Defense and national security. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have listened intently to the discussions this afternoon with respect to the AUMF of 2001 and the AUMF of 2002, and all of the speakers have made a point that I think is obvious: We have to update our authorizations to account for the past 16 years, to account for the transformation of the threats in those 16 years and many other factors. The Paul amendment does not give us that transformative language so that we can make a reasoned judgment. It simply gives us a 6-month period of time to work our way through all of the nuances, which are very complicated and difficult. I think it would unwittingly and unintentionally cause more difficulties than be an effective way to urge action and to seek complete action in this Senate and the House and a signature by the President. Again, I do understand the concerns of all. I supported the 2001 authorization for the use of military force after the incredible and shattering attacks on New York City, Washington, and the crash of an aircraft in Shanksville, PA, and we responded. Like so many of my colleagues who were here at the time, I did not expect that 16 years later we would still be engaged in the evolution of that fight that began on 9/11, but we cannot simply stop and threaten to pull back our legal framework with the expectation that in 6 months we will produce a new and more appropriate authorization for the use of military force. I think we should be on the floor debating such an AUMF. I think it should have been debated seriously and thoroughly in the Foreign Relations committee, subject to amendment, and brought forward to this Senate so that we could debate it. Then we could present it to our colleagues in the House and ultimately to the President and also do so in the full view of the American public. What we are simply doing, if the Paul amendment is adopted, is saying: If we can't get our job done in 6 months, then we have no legal authority or questionable legal authority to continue operations across the globe. It would be an arbitrary 6-month period. I think it would, unfortunately, send a very inappropriate signal to our troops and to our allies in the fight across the globe. Also, it would send an unfortunate signal to our adversaries because it would raise, quite literally, the possibility, since we have supported the option, of abandoning our legal basis for conducting many of these operations in 6 months. I think it would be read many places as a signal that the Senate has essentially declared that in 6 months we are going to de- authorize our military efforts. I think that signal would be very disturbing to our troops in the field, to our allies, and it would give a huge propaganda lever to our adversaries. The 6-month period is not related to our operations on the ground, not related to the planning and the operational procedures that are in place already. It is unrealistic to believe that if we cannot come to some resolution in 6 months, we could suddenly withdraw our forces or find some other reason to prosecute these wars and these efforts. Again, we have to think seriously about what the message would be if we adopted this resolution. I think the headline might say ``Senate moves to end involvement.'' I am more certain, after multiple trips to Iraq and Afghanistan and recently to Syria, that the headline in Baghdad and Kabul and Damascus would be ``U.S. moves to end engagement.'' That would cause great concern among our allies. It would cause great concern among our troops. Operationally, our planning and staging is not something that is done in 6-month periods. It takes months and months for military forces to prepare to go in. Unless we could do something literally next week, we would be running into the reality of American military commanders wondering whether they should begin to plan for the extraction of our forces and the closing of our facilities on these bases. I don't think anyone here believes, with the workload we have, that we could tackle this issue in the next week or two. As the days go by, that contingency becomes more pressing on our military forces. Those commanders would have to start making serious plans. Those serious plans would be easily communicated to our allies, to our adversaries, and to our troops on the ground. As a result, I think, again, this is not the responsible way to pursue what we all want, which is a more realistic AUMF, one more resonant in terms of being consistent with the reality today. Some people have argued--in fact, this seems to be the most compelling argument--that this will force Congress to act. Well, I do think we have to act, but I think what the proponents are missing is that our action will not be immediate. As we look ahead, we have recesses that we will observe; we will have other requirements; we have to get appropriations done. We have a host of legislative items. If this effort takes a backseat and we approach the 6 months again, the difficulty of conducting military operations will be significantly complicated. What is intended to be a forward effort in Afghanistan will gradually begin planning for withdrawal, even if at the last moment we come forward with a new authorization. We have to think about those things because it does affect the troops who are defending us today, it does affect how much our allies will be supportive of our efforts, and it will also, as I indicated, give our adversaries the argument that they have used repeatedly--that the United States is going. It was pointed out years ago on one of my first trips to Afghanistan--a saying has become commonplace where the Taliban would say: ``You all have the watches, we have the time.'' And what we are doing with this measure is once again giving them the time so they can predict or proselytize with more power that our presence will be diminished. Secretary Mattis and Secretary Tillerson have written to the Senate leadership expressing their concerns with this approach, and I immensely respect both gentlemen. I particularly respect Secretary Mattis for his service. He has been on the ground. He knows what it takes to lead marines, soldiers, airmen, and sailors in action. They are quite concerned. They are concerned about issues, too, to which we have not devoted full attention. As Secretary Mattis and Secretary Tillerson indicate, there is a strong argument that the legal basis for continuing to hold captured combatants at Guantanamo Bay would be taken away and that these individuals could, through our courts, apply for habeas corpus and could likely be released-- something that I don't think anyone would want to see. The presence of an AUMF provides a legal basis for holding these very dangerous combatants at Guantanamo Bay. I think it could also affect our ongoing operations against terrorists throughout the globe, particularly our military operations, our special forces operations that are focused on terrorists connected to Al-Qaida, connected to ISIS, connected to those groups who have, over several administrations, been included within the scope of the AUMF. To a point my colleagues have made, administrations going back to President George W. Bush, the Obama administration, and now the Trump administration--particularly in the case of the Obama and Bush administrations--have adjusted the AUMF to confront new circumstances, such as the rise of ISIS, et cetera. They have done so, though, in the context of a congressional statute, not because of the expansive power, under article II of the Constitution, of the President to defend the United States. One issue here is, again, do we want to put ourselves in the position where there is no governing law; rather it is simply that article II of the Constitution that provides the legal basis? For many reasons, I hope we will think carefully about our role with respect to Senator Paul's amendment. He has been tireless in his advocacy--``relentless,'' I think, is probably a better word. He is doing so with the utmost integrity and the utmost commitment to doing what he thinks is in the best interest of the United States. I come here today to point out what I think our consequences would be, which would be very serious and very detrimental to ourselves, particularly our troops. I ask all of my colleagues to think clearly about what we are doing. We should and we must replace the AUMFs--both of them; however, until we have a replacement, we shouldn't create a 6- month period of uncertainty, doubt, and confusion. That is what it will be because it will affect our soldiers, our allies, and in some respects, give more leverage to our adversaries. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today, along with so many of my colleagues--and Ms. Stabenow, who just spoke--with regard to DACA. We are here to oppose President Trump's unnecessary, political, and damaging decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, the DACA Program. To close the door on the American dream for nearly 800,000 people who are American in every way but on paper goes against every measure of sound public policy, productive economics, and basic decency. Today, I join my colleagues in Congress, hundreds of American business executives, thousands of higher education officials and faith leaders, and a majority of the American people who have made their voices heard over the past few days to denounce President Trump's elimination of DACA, and call for legislative action to protect Dreamers and provide them a realistic and responsible pathway to citizenship. We must be absolutely clear about what President Trump has done, on his own, without any need or, in my view, legal requirement to do so. By his choice, in less than 6 months, the administration will begin forcing hundreds of thousands of Dreamers, many in their twenties and thirties, out of their jobs, out of our military, out of our schools, and out of the United States--the only country that most of them have ever really known. It is true that Dreamers were brought here as children outside the appropriate processes, but this was through no fault or decision of their own. Since then, they have pursued higher education, started families, worked hard, paid taxes, and stayed out of serious trouble with the law. Some have served honorably with our Armed Forces and put their lives on the line to keep us all safe. We gain nothing and lose a great deal by separating these young people from their jobs, their homes, their spouses, and children and sending them to countries they hardly know. At no point in our debates over immigration have we found a good reason to spend our limited immigration enforcement resources on Dreamers. The premise of DACA was, and continues to be, that we need permanent, comprehensive immigration reform--but until then, Dreamers who contribute to our society should be allowed to come out of the shadows and lead healthy, productive lives. Rather than pursuing these young Americans, our immigration enforcement resources should focus on practical measures that make us safe, not wasteful and symbolic projects like a border wall. We should improve surveillance of the border and the apprehension of more illegal entrants. We should incentivize legal immigration and make it feasible for people to come here and pursue better opportunities. I am eager to work with my colleagues to craft a tough but fair, and comprehensive immigration reform package that incorporates good ideas from both sides of the aisle. Until then, however, we accomplish nothing by forcing hundreds of thousands of families to live in fear, and regret ever trusting our country enough to register for DACA in the first place. Too much of this debate is driven by President Trump's apparent refusal to accept basic truths about who his actions affect and what his decisions mean for our country. His administration's rhetoric suggests that deporting Dreamers will make us safer and somehow restore the rule of ``law and order,'' but these are the facts of the matter: first, today, unauthorized immigration continues to decline, as it has every year, since its peak in 2007. Second--and not without controversy--President Obama's administration deported a record 5 million undocumented immigrants, particularly violent felons. These were important steps, but we have learned that enforcement alone does not solve practical problems for people like Dreamers, and their families and employers. Moreover, deporting Dreamers does nothing to make us safer. Dreamers qualify for DACA precisely because they have not committed serious crimes, and conflating them with criminals only feeds the false premise that immigrants are prone to criminality when all of the evidence shows that the opposite is true. In fact, studies from the National Bureau of Economic Research and the conservative Cato Institute have concluded that immigrants tend to commit fewer crimes than do people born in the United States, and U.S. Census data shows that, among adult males, immigrants are one-half to one-fifth as likely to be incarcerated here. Just as insidious is the persistent myth that Dreamers are somehow harming our economy or taking jobs from American citizens. We can and should debate what kind of immigration reform would best support our economy, but there is no credible support for the argument that Dreamers harm our economy or that deporting them would create jobs for anyone. The fact is that, according to the Center for American Progress, ending DACA would result in an estimated loss of over $460 billion from our GDP over the next decade, including an annual loss of over $60 million per year in my home State of Rhode Island. We know from experience that deporting employed immigrants does not raise wages. In fact, many jobs lost tend to go unfilled. And, because of President Trump's actions, families of Dreamers will sit at their kitchen tables in the coming months and struggle needlessly with questions of how to feed their children and keep roofs over their heads now that the administration has forced mom or dad out of work, or out of the country. These are American families, and doing this to them is the opposite of putting America first. It is our responsibility to protect our country from economic harm and to uphold our ideals and commitments, and that means keeping faith with Dreamers and their families. We should put ourselves in their shoes and remember how each of our families came to this Nation and worked to achieve the American dream for themselves, their children, and their children's children. I applaud Senators Graham and Durbin for introducing the bipartisan Dream Act of 2017. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation on our way to a meaningful debate on comprehensive immigration reform. I hope that we can find the will to come together and swiftly pass this legislation to strengthen our Nation, keep our economy growing, and keep faith with our best ideals. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.