{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7980-2", "2020-12-30", 116, 2, null, null, "NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S7980", "S7982", "[{\"name\": \"Jack Reed\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"James M. Inhofe\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "166 Cong. Rec. S7980", "Congressional Record, Volume 166 Issue 222 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 222 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S7980-S7982]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT\n\n  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to rise and discuss the Fiscal\nYear 2021 National Defense Authorization Act.\n  First, I would like to salute the chairman. He has done an\nextraordinary job. We have both served on the committee for many years,\nand this is probably the most challenging year we have had due to many\ndifferent factors: the pandemic, the virtual hearings, all those\nthings.\n  And this has been particularly challenging, and the chairman, at\nevery point, stood up to the challenge and led us. I want to thank him\nfor that. It was a pleasure working with him.\n  We all recognize that this legislation passed both Chambers, the\nHouse and the Senate, by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. And it is\nvery important legislation. That is why it earned this bipartisan\nsupport.\n  It enhances our national security. It strengthens our military\nreadiness and defense capabilities. It protects our forces and their\nfamilies and supports the defense industrial base.\n  Despite all that it does for our troops and their families, President\nTrump waited until the 10th day after he received it and vetoed it the\nlast day he could exercise his veto. That was December 23, which made\nquite a Christmas for our military personnel and for all of my\ncolleagues who are here today to start the process of responding to\nthat veto.\n  The House already took the first step. They returned on Monday. Once\nagain, by an overwhelming vote, over 300 Members of the House overrode\nthe President's veto. Now we face the same task in the Senate. It is my\nhope we can quickly and resoundingly override\n\n[[Page S7981]]\n\nthe President's veto and provide our troops with what they need.\n  I will echo what the chairman said. You can go through all the\nthousands of pages, literally, but what is the most significant aspect\nof this legislation is keeping faith with the men and women who wear\nthe uniform of the United States. So if anyone has any thoughts about\ntheir vote, just think about those men and women who are all across the\nworld putting their lives at risk while their families share that risk\nand that sense of danger and sacrifice. That is what I think has\nmotivated the chairman and myself and all of our colleagues on the\ncommittee and throughout this Senate to work hard to get this bill\npassed.\n  There are several reasons being advanced by the President for\nsuggesting that this bill should be vetoed--the veto should be upheld.\nOne reason is that he claims the bill fails to include critical\nnational security measures. Yet this legislation provides critical\ntools and authorities for the Department of Homeland Security to\nperform network hunting for threats and vulnerabilities on Federal\nnetworks. These tools and authorities would help to counter breaches\nlike the SolarWinds hack, which is possibly the largest intrusion into\nour system we have ever seen by a foreign nation state adversary. We do\nnot yet know the extent and the degree of intrusion that we have\nsuffered. In fact, we weren't aware of this intrusion for many, many\nmonths.\n  One of the disconcerting aspects is that it was discovered by a\nprivate company that is one of the most, if not the most sophisticated\ncyber intrusion expert in the world. Yet they were penetrated.\n  So we have a serious, serious situation on our hands. This\nlegislation would start giving basic tools, which would allow our cyber\nsecurity experts to go into other Departments to look at their\nprocedures, their policies, all of their cyber activities, and\nrecommend corrections.\n  In fact, this bill has done more, I think, for cyber based on the\nwork of the Cyber Solarium Commission, which was chaired by Senator\nAngus King and Congressman   Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin and also aided\nsignificantly by my colleague Congressman  Jim Langevin of Rhode\nIsland. They put the work together. We took a lot of the Solarium's\nwork and put it into this bill. So there is absolutely no credence to\nthe issue that we have not dealt with national security and cyber\nintrusions in particular.\n  Then again, the President, in his veto message, wrote that one of the\nreasons is the failure to essentially repeal section 230 of the\nCommunications Decency Act. But this issue has nothing to do with the\nmilitary--nothing at all. It was designed years ago to provide legal\nprotections to social media companies so that they could expand and\ngrow. Frankly, I think it has worked beyond our wildest imaginations.\nEveryone recognizes it should be reformed, but reform requires\nthoughtful, responsible analysis of the legislation. The effects of the\nlegislation should offer both sides the opportunity to explain\npositions. None of that was done, and none of that can be done before\nwe conclude this legislative session.\n  It is more, I think, a personal feud of the President, the section\n230 repeal, than it is one of careful, deliberate, thoughtful\nlegislation by the Senate.\n  There is another reason the President has used, and that is we have\nestablished a commission to make recommendations for the renaming and\nremoval of symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor\nor commemorate Confederates who served voluntarily with the\nConfederacy. There is a clear exemption, by the way, for gravestones\nthat we would absolutely respect. But these individuals--many of them\nwho were on Active service with our Army or Navy at the time--decided\nto consciously fight against the United States of America. It is that\nsimple. Yet we have bases that are named after them.\n  The President said this is part of the American heritage of victory\nand freedom, but, again, these are named after men who took up arms\nagainst the United States. In some cases--in most cases, they weren't\nparticularly exemplary generals, with some exceptions. And it was done\nin a way that I think was not to honor the service of these individuals\nbut to advance other forces.\n  I think it is time that this history be changed, that this chapter be\nclosed, and the senior Defense Department officials have indicated they\nare open to these changes. There is bipartisan support for cooperation\non this issue. It passed the committee. It passed the floor. It passed\nthe House. Now, it is in this legislation.\n  When the President vetoed the bill, he also said it is a ``gift to\nChina and Russia.'' I would strenuously disagree. This is one of the\nstrongest bills yet on countering the threat China poses to the United\nStates and our partners, including allies such as India, Taiwan, and\nother countries and regions.\n\n  Among the provisions of this legislation is the Pacific Deterrence\nInitiative. That is a new authority for the Department of Defense,\nmodeled after the European Deterrence Initiative and authorizes an\nadditional $150 million in funding.\n  This was the work--I was proud to collaborate, but the lead was the\nchairman, Chairman Inhofe, and I was his copilot on that one. This is\nthe first time we really stepped back and said: We have a new threat--\nsignificant threat--rising in the Pacific. We have to take a holistic\nreview of strategy, capabilities, equipment, and we have to make this a\ntop priority.\n  So rather than doing nothing about China, as the President alleges, I\nthink we have made one of the most significant steps forward in\nconsciously recognizing the relationship that has developed between\nChina and the United States.\n  With regard to Russia and Europe, the conference report enhances our\nability to deter Russian aggression, maintains strong support for\nUkraine, and reaffirms our commitment to the transatlantic partnership,\nincluding by calling for a strong U.S. force posture in Germany.\n  Now, President Trump also vetoed this legislation because he wants\nthe ability to remove our military from ``far away and very\nunappreciative lands.'' Those are his words. Particularly, I have\nconcern about the situation in Afghanistan. First--and I have been to\nAfghanistan somewhere close to 20 times--since the beginning.\n  In fact, I was on the first congressional delegation to go in January\nafter the invasion. I have tried to pay attention to what is going on\nthere. And one point is that the Afghan people have struggled and\nfought with us side by side. They have suffered greatly. I don't think\nit is right to say they are unappreciative. I think every day they have\nbeen suffering casualties. They have been fighting with our soldiers--\nin fact, in some cases, saving and helping our soldiers survive on the\nfield.\n  Second, essentially, the provision allows the President to make the\ndecision. In fact, he can waive all the provisions we built in by\nsimply declaring that it is in the national security interests of the\nUnited States and communicating that to the respective leaders in the\nHouse and the Senate. That is something that is almost pro forma. So\nthe notion that this seriously hampers his ability is misplaced.\n  What it does, though, is signal that we have to be very careful in\nrecognizing all of the equities that are involved in Afghanistan. The\nfact is that there are numerous terrorist groups there, and we have to\nmaintain a counterterrorism presence; the fact that, as I indicated\nbefore, the Government of Afghanistan, the Afghan people, in many\ncases, have suffered more than we have considering the onslaught of the\nTaliban and other forces. So, again, I don't think that reason measures\nup to the demands.\n  The National Defense Authorization Act has passed for 59 years. We\nneed to ensure it will pass for 60 years by overriding the President's\nveto. The House, as I said, has already done that--322 to 87. I\nencourage my colleagues to show similar support for our military\npersonnel and their families and override this veto.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.\n  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me elaborate a little bit on something\nthat my good friend from Rhode Island said about China.\n  I think it is very, very significant that we realize that this is the\ntoughest bill on China that has ever been\n\n[[Page S7982]]\n\npassed. That didn't come just from me; that came from the American\nEnterprise Institute, which has all the credibility in the world. They\ntalk about the serious things that are going on, and they actually said\nthis bill has the most substantial and consequential China-related\nprovisions since--in, probably, history.\n  That is significant because all of us remember--I know that Senator\nReed and I have both spent time in the South China Sea, the seven\nislands that they are doing right now. China--it is illegal, but they\nhave taken over--no, they have created seven islands in the South China\nSea. When you go down there, it looks as if, on those islands, they are\npreparing for World War III. A lot of our allies in that area are very\nmuch concerned because they are making a lot more noise than we are,\nand they are demonstrating very clearly some of the things that they do\nthat we haven't done. Hypersonics is an example. That is a state-of-\nthe-art thing that we do in modernizing our military equipment and\nabilities. It has been very successful, but they are still ahead of us,\nso we are in catchup mode.\n  I would say this: When you go and you look and you see the buildups\nthat they have--I can remember--it wasn't long ago that every time\nChina got involved in any kind of an effort, they did it from their own\ncity limits there. Now they are all over Djibouti, Tanzania, and all\naround the world.\n  We made this bill to establish the Pacific Deterrence Initiative.\nThat is $2.2 billion for foreign posture to put ourselves in the\nposition where we are going to pass, with this bill--we will pass\nChina, and then we will be shifting the supply chains away from China--\nsemiconductors and printed circuit boards, the pharmaceuticals--\nstimulating the U.S. economy, protecting weapons systems and our\ntroops, and bringing China's malign national security activities into\nlight to make sure everybody knows what they are doing there.\n  We have a new report in this bill on the true China defense security\nspending, new assessments of China's industrial base, new list of\nChinese companies operating in the United States and making it more\ndifficult for them to do that. It is all in this bill. There is a new\nreport on the fishing fleets they have out there. It extends the\nsuccessful China Military Power Report, supports Taiwan and a new plan\nagainst--that is better than anything we have ever done before.\n  Yesterday, I put this into the record--all the things that we are\ndoing just concentrating on the threat that is posed to the United\nStates from the country of China. It is all in this bill. So this is\nsomething we have taken great pride in because we recognize the threat\nthat is posed to our country from the Chinese.\n  This is a good bill. It is one that deserves overwhelming support. I\nwill say one more time that a lot of work went into this from both\nsides of the aisle. We were in agreement on it with huge margins of\nsupport in both Chambers of the House and the Senate. We will have a\nchance to move procedurally toward that and make that a reality before\nthe end of the week.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7980-2"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 76.25364302657545, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}