John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now vote on these amendments en bloc.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I mentioned to my colleagues that we would have these two votes later this afternoon, depending on an agreement between the majority leader and the Democratic leader. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation, and we look forward to those two votes. I thank my colleague from Oregon for allowing me to make this unanimous consent request.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we will probably discuss this some more-- this issue of the privatization--later on before we actually vote on the amendment, but this is a classic example of a distortion of an issue which could save the taxpayers $1 billion that we subsidize the commissary system. It is not privatizing, I say to the Senator from Maryland; it is a pilot program of five--count them, five--military bases. There are companies and providers of food and services that are ready to try to establish on bases. We are not taking away a single commissary. We are not closing a single one--not one. But what we are trying to do is--if you want to have a hamburger at Burger King or McDonald's or Dunkin' Donuts or use UPS, you can go on a military base and they will provide you that service. The government doesn't do it. They don't make hamburgers. They don't carry mail. All of a sudden, now we have to have more studies. The real study would be a pilot program which proves successful. By the way, if you ask the men and women who are in the military ``Would you like to shop at Walmart or Safeway or one of these others if it is convenient?'' do you know what the answer is? ``Of course. Yes.'' Because there is more variety and there are lower prices. Does my colleague, the Senator from Maryland, know that we are spending over $1 billion of taxpayer money on these commissaries every year, when we could probably do it for nothing or even charge these groups or commercial enterprises that would like to come, in a pilot program, to a military base? This is crazy. Fort Belvoir Commissary right here, the highest grossing store in the system, loses 10 cents on every dollar of goods it produces and sells, and guess who covers those losses. The taxpayers of America. It is not an attempt to take away the commissary benefits; it is an attempt to see if the men and women in the military and all their dependents around the bases might get a better product at a lower price. That is what five--count them, five--privatizations are attempting to try. Yesterday, we received the Department of Defense report on its plan to modernize the commissary and exchange systems. In that report, DOD stated that private sector entities are ``willing to engage in a pilot program.'' DOD has told us that at least three major private sector entities are interested in testing commissary privatization. This has led DOD to publish a request for information to industry to give feedback on how a privatization pilot program could work. So why would my colleague support an amendment that would delay what needs to be done? This is really all about an outfit called the grocery brokers. That industry has been working overtime to stop this pilot program because if it is successful, privatization would destroy their successful business model because they wouldn't have to use the grocery brokers. That is what this is all about, my friends. So rather than paying over $1 billion a year to be in the grocery business, privatization might provide--I am not saying it will, but it might provide the Department of Defense with an alternative method of giving the men and women in the military and our retirees high-quality grocery products, higher levels of customer satisfaction, and discount savings, while reducing the financial burden on taxpayers. We need to have a pilot program for sure. Five pilot programs is not the end of civilization as we know it. It is not a burden on the men and women who are serving. I have talked to hundreds of men and women who are serving. I said ``How would you like to have Safeway on the base? How would you like to have Walmart?'' and they said ``Gee, I would really like that'' because they get a wider and diverse selection from which to choose--not to mention, although it doesn't seem to matter around here, it might save $1 billion for the taxpayers. But what is $1 billion? We are going to spend a couple billion dollars just on medical research--which the Senator from Maryland obviously is in favor of--calling it in the name of defense, when it absolutely should be funded by other branches of the Appropriations Committee, rather than the Willie Sutton syndrome and taking it out of defense. All I can say to the Senator from Maryland is that all we are talking about is giving it a try in five places. Let's not go to general quarters about an attempt to see if we can save the taxpayers $1 billion a year. We are not going to close any commissaries in any remote bases. We are not doing anything but a five-base pilot program. That is all there is to this amendment, and to portray it as anything else is a distortion of exactly what the legislation has clearly stated its intent to be. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland. I always enjoy spirited discussion with her. She is a wonderful public servant, and I am going to miss her in this institution because she has an honorable record of outstanding service, and I always enjoy doing combat. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is my understanding that we are trying to set up the amendment and second-degree amendment on the increase of an authorization of $17 billion. It is my understanding there will also be a second-degree amendment. I just want to say a few words about the amendment which is pending. We were trying to reach an agreement as to when we will have debate and vote on both the second degree and the amendment itself. I would point out that the unfunded requirements of the military services total $23 billion for the next fiscal year alone. Sequestration threatens to return in 2018, taking away another $100 billion from our military. The amendment would increase defense spending by $18 billion. I will be pleased to go through all of the programs where there is increased spending, but I would point out that those increases were in the 5-year defense plan but were cut because of the authorization of $17 billion--the President's request of $17 billion from what we had last year. From a quick glance around the world, I think we can certainly make one understand that the world is not a safer place than it was last year. We are cutting into readiness, maintenance, and all kinds of problems are beginning to arise in the military. My friend from Rhode Island and I will be discussing and debating both the second-degree amendment and the amendment, and hopefully we will have votes either tomorrow or on Thursday, depending on negotiations between the leaders. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I understand that the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from New Mexico are interested in getting noncontroversial legislation up and completed. I am more than pleased to yield time from our discussion of the Defense authorization bill for the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. When he gets ready, we will obviously be ready to yield to the Senator from Oklahoma for consideration of that important legislation. In the meantime, I would like to point out that, as part of this package of $18 billion, it increases the military pay raise to 2.1 percent. The current administration's budget request sets pay raises at 1.6 percent. It fully funds troops in Afghanistan at 9,800. The budget request of the President funds troop levels at 6,217. It stops the cuts to end strength and capacity. It restores the end strength for Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. For example, it cancels the planned reduction of 15,000 active Army soldiers. If the planned reduction actually was implemented, we would have one of the smallest armies in history, certainly in recent history. It funds the recommendations of the National Commission on the Future of the Army. It includes additional funding for purchasing 36 additional UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, 5 AH-64 Apaches, and 5 CH-47 Chinook helicopters. I would point out that all of those were in keeping with the recommendations of the National Commission on the Future of the Army. It adds $2.2 billion to readiness to help alleviate problems each of the military services are grappling with. Of the $23 billion in unfunded requirements received by the military services, almost $7 billion of it was identified as readiness related. It addresses the Navy's ongoing strike fighter shortfall and the U.S. Marine Corps aviation readiness crisis by increasing aircraft procurement. It addresses high priority unfunded requirements for the Navy and Marine Corps, including 14 F/A-18 Super Hornets and 11 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. It supports the Navy shipbuilding program, and it provides the balance of funding necessary to fully fund the additional fiscal year 2016 DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. It restores the cut of the one littoral combat ship in fiscal year 2017. It supports the European Reassurance Initiative with the manufacturing and modernization of 14 M1 Abrams tanks and 14 M2 Bradley fighting vehicles. There is also increased support for Israeli cooperation on air defense programs of some $200 million. What this is is an effort to make up for the shortfall that would bring us up to last year's number--last year's. Again, I want to point out--and we will talk more about it--we have all kinds of initiatives going on. We have an increase in troops' presence in Iraq and Syria; we are having much more participation in the European reassurance program; and there is more emphasis on our rebalancing in Asia. At the same time, we are cutting defense and making it $17 billion lower than the military needed and planned for last year. I hope that my colleagues would understand and appreciate the need, particularly when we look at the deep cuts and consequences of reductions in readiness, training, and other of the intangibles that make the American military the great organization--superior to all potential adversaries--that it is. I hope my colleagues will look at what we are proposing for tomorrow. I know the other side will have a second-degree amendment as well. I haven't seen it, but I would be pleased to give it utmost consideration, depending on its contents. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to be thanked again.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Rhode Island and look forward to vigorous debate on both the initial amendment and the second-degree amendment proposed by my friend from Rhode Island. I would like to engage in very vigorous debate on both, and hopefully, for the benefit of my colleagues, cloture on both will be filed by the majority leader and hopefully we can finish debate on it either late morning tomorrow or early afternoon, if necessary, so we can move on to other amendments. Let's have no doubt about how important this debate and discussion on this amendment will be tomorrow. We are talking about $18 billion. In the case of the Senator from Rhode Island, I am sure there are numerous billions more as well. I think it deserves every Members' attention and debate. I say to my friend from Rhode Island, I certainly understand the point of view and the position they have taken, and from a glance at this, it looks like there are some areas of funding that are related to national security that I think are supportable. There are others that are not, but we look forward to the debate tomorrow, and hopefully any Member who wants to be involved will come down and engage in this debate. We would like to wrap it up tomorrow because there are a number of other amendments pending. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I honor an exceptional leader and aviator. After 39 years, a lifetime of service to our Nation, ADM Bill Gortney is retiring from the U.S. Navy. On this occasion, I find it fitting to recognize Admiral Gortney's many accomplishments and years of uniformed service to our Nation. As the son of a U.S. Navy captain and WWII aviator, Admiral Gortney was no stranger to the challenges and opportunities of naval aviation. After graduating from Elon College with a bachelor of arts in history and political science, he entered the Aviation Officer Candidate School and commissioned in the U.S. Naval Reserve in 1977. He earned his wings of gold as a naval aviator following his graduation from the jet strike pilot training pipeline in 1978. He is a 1996 graduate of Naval War College and earned his master of arts in international security affairs. Admiral Gortney moved through the ranks quickly, moving from commander to four-star admiral in 8 years. Despite his rapid ascent through the command naval ranks, Admiral Gortney still managed to log over 5,360 mishap-free flight hours and completed over 1,265 carrier- arrested landings primarily in the A-7E Corsair II and the F/A-18 Hornet. Admiral Gortney has completed seven tours of command, starting with the VFA-15 Vallions and culminating with his third commanding tour in U.S. Central Command, as commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command / U.S. 5th Fleet, where he provided support to maritime security operations and combat operations for Operations Enduring Freedom And Iraqi Freedom. Admiral Gortney's first flag tour was as the deputy chief of staff for Global Force Management and Joint Operation, U.S. Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk. This was followed by assignment as Commander, Carrier Strike Group 10 onboard the USS Harry S Truman, during which time he was promoted to a two-star rear admiral. After promotion to his third star, he was assigned as Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S. 5th Fleet/Combined Maritime Forces, Bahrain. He also served as director, joint staff, from 2010-2012. In 2012, he became Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command. His final assignment prior to retirement was that of Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command. It is the first and only position that places a single military commander in charge of the protection of our Nation from any potential attacks on U.S. soil. It is also the only binational command in the world's existence between Canada and the United States. During his tenure there, Admiral Gortney redefined the mission for USNORTHCOM's future, furthering the bonds that have secured the skies above the homelands for 60 years. He built a personal trust critical to the strength of the alliance with our partners in Canada, Mexico, and the Bahamas and was able to expand the traditional bounds of security cooperation. He increased military-to-military training and interaction. Within the homeland, Admiral Gortney's keen intuition led to a deliberate campaign plan to protect the United States forces from the threat of homegrown violent extremists. He led the Department of Defense planning to support lead Federal agencies to minimize the threat of both the Ebola and Zika viruses. Throughout his career, Admiral Gortney's message of empowerment and his relentless desire to seek creative solutions to the commands' challenges has served as an example to all during his lifetime exemplary of military service. I join with the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in expressing my respect and gratitude to Admiral Gortney for his outstanding service to our Nation. I offer heartfelt thanks to Bill; his wife, Sherry; their children, Stephanie and Billy; daughter-in-law, Jackie; and grandchildren, Gavin and Grayson. Congratulations to all on Bill's retirement from the U.S. Navy after a lifetime of dedicated service. To Bill, trusted leader and dedicated patriot, fair winds and following seas.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4229.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4206.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his very compelling statement. Just one example of what the Senator from Texas has referred to is the whole issue of Qadhafi. I would remind my colleague from Texas that we got rid of Qadhafi without losing a single American and then walked away. We walked away from it, and now we see ISIS establishing a strong beachhead--a direct failure of leadership of the Obama administration and the then-Secretary of State. There were many of us, including the Senator from Texas, who said: Look, we have to do a lot of things now that you have gotten rid of Qadhafi. This country has never known democracy; it has no institutions. For example, we could have taken care of their wounded. We could have helped them secure their borders. Instead, what did we do? We killed Qadhafi--or his own people killed him. But we set up a scenario that happened and just walked away--just as we walked away from Iraq, just as we are sort of walking away from Afghanistan while the Taliban is starting to show success throughout the country. This administration is very good at walking away. Unfortunately, the consequences are attacks on the United States of America and Europe. So I thank the Senator from Texas for his very important statement.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is my pleasure to rise with my friend and colleague from Rhode Island to speak about the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017. For 54 consecutive years, Congress has passed this vital piece of legislation, which provides our military servicemembers with the resources, equipment, and training they need to defend the Nation. The NDAA is one of the few bills in Congress that continues to enjoy bipartisan support year after year. That is a testament to this legislation's critical importance to our national security and the high regard with which it is held by the Congress. Last month, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 23 to 3--23 to 3--to approve the NDAA, an overwhelming vote that reflects the committee's proud tradition of bipartisan support for the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. I thank the committee's ranking member, the Senator from Rhode Island, for his months of hard work on the NDAA. It has been a great pleasure to work with him on this legislation, and I remain appreciative of the thoughtfulness and bipartisan spirit with which he approaches our national security. He is a great partner and a great leader. I also thank the majority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, for his commitment to bring the NDAA to the Senate floor on time and without delay. It is a testimony to his leadership that the Senate will once again consider this bill in regular order with an open amendment process. I am tremendously proud of the Senate Armed Services Committee's work on this legislation. This year's NDAA is the most significant piece of defense reform legislation in 30 years. It includes major reforms to the Department of Defense that can help our military rise to the challenge of a more dangerous world. The NDAA contains updates to the Pentagon's organization to prioritize innovation and improve the development and execution of defense strategy. The legislation continues sweeping reforms of the defense acquisition system to harness American innovation and preserve our military's technological edge. The NDAA modernizes the military health system to provide military servicemembers, retirees, and their families with higher quality care, better access to care, and a better experience of care. The NDAA authorizes a pay raise for our troops. It invests in the modern equipment and advanced training they need to meet current and future threats. It helps to restore military readiness with $2 billion for additional training, depot maintenance, and weapons sustainment. And it gives our allies and partners the support they need to deter aggression and fight terrorism. This is a far-reaching piece of legislation, but there is one challenge it could not address: the dangerous mismatch between growing worldwide threats and arbitrary limits on defense spending that are in current law. This mismatch has very real consequences for the thousands of Americans who serve in uniform and sacrifice on our behalf all around the Nation and the world. Our troops are doing everything we ask of them, but we must ask ourselves: Are we doing everything we can for them? The answer, I say with profound sadness, is we are not. Since 2011 the Budget Control Act has imposed arbitrary caps on defense spending. Over the last 5 years, as our military has struggled under the threat of sequestration, the world has only grown more complex and far more dangerous. Since 2011 we have seen Russian forces invade Ukraine, the emergence of the so-called Islamic State and its global campaign of terrorism, increased attempts by Iran to destabilize U.S. allies and partners in the Middle East, growing assertive behavior by China and the militarization of the South China Sea, numerous cyber attacks on U.S. industry and government agencies, and further testing by North Korea of nuclear technology and other advanced military capabilities. Indeed, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified in February that over the course of his distinguished five-decade career, he could not recall ``a more diverse array of challenges and crises'' than our Nation confronts today. Our military is being forced to confront these growing threats with shrinking resources. This year's defense budget is more than $150 billion less than fiscal year 2011. Despite periodic relief from the budget caps that imposed these cuts, including the Bipartisan Budget Act of last year, each of our military services remains underfunded, undersized, and unready to meet current and future threats. In short, as threats grow and the operational demands on our military increase, defense spending in constant dollars is decreasing. How does that make any sense? The President's defense budget request strictly adheres to the bipartisan budget agreement, which is $17 billion less than what the Department of Defense planned for last year. As a result, the military services' underfunded requirements total nearly $23 billion for the coming fiscal year alone. Meanwhile, sequestration threatens to return in 2018, taking away another $100 billion from our military through 2021. This is unacceptable. While the NDAA conforms to last year's budget agreement at present, I have filed an amendment to increase defense spending above the current spending caps. This amendment will reverse shortsighted cuts to modernization, restore military readiness, and give our servicemembers the support they need and deserve. I do not know whether this amendment will succeed, but the Senate must have this debate and Senators are going to have to choose a side. At the same time, as I have long believed, providing for the common defense is not just about a bigger defense budget--as necessary as that is. We must also reform our Nation's defense enterprise to meet new threats, both today and tomorrow, and to give Americans greater confidence, which they don't have a lot of now, that the Department of Defense is spending their tax dollars efficiently and effectively. That is exactly what this legislation does. The last major reorganization of the Department of Defense was the Goldwater-Nichols Act, which marks its 30th anniversary this year. Last fall the Senate Armed Services Committee held a series of 13 hearings on defense reform. We heard from 52 of our Nation's foremost defense experts and leaders. The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 30 years ago responded to the challenges of its time. Our goal was to determine what changes needed to be made to prepare the Department of Defense to meet the new set of strategic challenges. As Jim Locher, the lead staffer on Goldwater-Nichols, testified last year: ``No organizational blueprint lasts forever. . . . [T]he world in which DOD must operate has changed dramatically over the last 30 years.'' Instead of one great power rival, the United States now faces a series of transregional, cross-functional, multidomain, and long-term strategic competitions that pose a significant challenge to the organization of the Pentagon and the military, which is often rigidly aligned around functional issues and regional geography. Put simply, the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 30 years ago was about operational effectiveness--improving the ability of the military services to plan and operate together as one joint force. The problem today is strategic integration--how the Department of Defense integrates its activities and resources across different regions, functions, and domains, while balancing and sustaining those efforts over time. The NDAA would require the next Secretary of Defense to create a series of ``cross-functional mission teams'' to better integrate the Department's efforts and achieve discrete objectives. For example, one could imagine a Russia mission team with representatives from policy, intelligence, acquisition, budget, the services, and more. There is no mechanism to perform this kind of integration at present. The Secretary and the Deputy have to do it ad hoc, which is an unrealistic burden. The idea of cross-functional teams has been shown to be tremendously effective in the private sector and by innovative military leaders, such as GEN Stan McChrystal. If applied effectively in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, I believe this concept could be every bit as impactful as the Goldwater-Nichols reforms. The NDAA would also require the next Secretary to reorganize one combatant command around joint task forces focused on discrete operational missions rather than military services. Here, too, the goal is to improve integration across different military functions and do so with far fewer staff than these commands now have. Similarly, the legislation seeks to clarify the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, focusing this leader on more strategic issues, while providing the Chairman greater authority to assist the Secretary with the global integration of military operations. The NDAA also seeks to curb the growth in civilian staff and military officers that has occurred in recent years. Over the past 30 years, the end strength--the total number of members of the services--of the joint force has decreased by 38 percent. The number of men and women serving in the military has decreased by 38 percent, but the ratio of four-star officers--admirals and generals--to the overall force has increased by 65 percent. We have seen similar increases among civilians at the senior executive service level. The NDAA, therefore, requires a carefully tailored 25-percent reduction in the number of general and flag officers, a corresponding 25-percent decrease to the ranks of senior civilians, and a 25-percent cut to the amount of money that can be spent on contractors who are doing staff work. The NDAA also caps the size of the National Security Council policy staff at 150. The National Security Council staff will be capped at 150. The staff has steadily grown over administrations of both parties in recent decades. Under George Herbert Walker Bush, there were 40; more than 100 in the Clinton administration; more than 200 during the George W. Bush administration; and now there are reports of nearly 400 under the current administration, plus as many as 200 contractors. This tremendous growth has enabled a troubling expansion of the NSC staff's activities from their original strategic focus to micromanagement of operational issues in ways that are inconsistent with the intent of Congress when it created the NSC in 1947. It has gotten so bad that all three leaders who served as Secretary of Defense under the current administration recently blasted the NSC's micromanagement of operational issues during their tenures. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has come out publicly in favor of shrinking the staff, saying he thinks we can do the job better with fewer people. In short, the NSC staff is becoming increasingly involved in operational issues that should be the purview of Senate-confirmed individuals in the chain of command, and doing so beyond the reach of congressional oversight. If this organization were to return to the intent of the legislation that established it, it could reasonably claim that its strategic functions on behalf of the President are protected by Executive privilege. If, on the other hand, the NSC staff is to play the kind of operational role it has in recent years--and I could give my colleagues example after example--if it is going to play the kind of operational role it has in recent years, then such a body cannot escape congressional oversight. The purpose of the provision in the NDAA to cap the size of the NSC staff is to state a preference for the Congress's original intent in creating the NSC. As I have said, integration is a major theme in the NDAA. Another one is innovation. For years after the Cold War, the United States enjoyed a near monopoly on advanced military technologies. That is changing rapidly. Our adversaries are catching up, and the United States is at real and increasing risk of losing the military technological dominance we have taken for granted for 30 years. At the same time, our leaders are struggling to innovate against an acquisition system that too often impedes their efforts. I have applauded Secretary Carter's attempts to innovate and reach out to nontraditional high-tech firms, but it is telling that this has required the Secretary's personal intervention to create new offices, organizations, outposts, and initiatives--all to move faster and get around the current acquisition system. Innovation cannot be an auxiliary office at the Department of Defense; it must be the central mission of its acquisition system. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, also known as AT&L. It has grown too big, tries to do too much, and is too focused on compliance at the expense of innovation. That is why the NDAA seeks to divide AT&L's duties between two offices--a new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and an empowered and renamed Under Secretary of Management and Support, which was congressionally mandated 2 years ago. The job of research and engineering would be developing defense technologies that can ensure a new era of U.S. qualitative military dominance. This office would set defense-wide acquisition and industrial-based policy. It would pull together the centers of innovation in the defense acquisition system. It would oversee the development and manufacturing of weapons by the services. In short, research and engineering would be a staff job focused on innovation, policy, and oversight of the military services and certain defense agencies, such as DARPA. By contrast, management and support would be a line management position. It would manage the multibillion-dollar businesses--such as the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Commissary Agency--that buy goods and services for the Department of Defense. It would also manage other defense agencies that perform other critical business functions for the Department, such as performing audits, paying our troops, and managing contracts. This would not only enable research and engineering to focus on technology development, it would also provide for a better management of billions of dollars of spending on mission support activities. These organizational changes complement the additional acquisition reforms in the NDAA that build on our efforts of last year. This legislation creates new pathways for the Department of Defense to do business with nontraditional defense firms. It streamlines regulations to procure commercial goods and services. It provides new authorities for the rapid prototyping, acquisition, and fielding of new capabilities. It imposes new limits on the use of so-called ``cost- plus'' contracts. The overuse of these kinds of contracts and the complicated and expensive government bureaucracy that goes with them serves as a barrier to entry for commercial, nontraditional, and small businesses that are driving the innovation our military needs. Another major reform in this year's NDAA is the most sweeping overhaul of the military health system in a generation. This strong bipartisan effort is the result of several years of careful study. The NDAA creates greater health value for military families and retirees and their families by improving the quality of health care they receive, providing timely access to care, and enhancing patient satisfaction--all done at lower costs to the patients by encouraging them to seek high-value health services from high-value health care providers. The NDAA incorporates many of the best practices and recent innovations of high-performing private sector health care providers. For example, the NDAA creates specialized care centers of excellence at major medical centers based on the specialized care delivery model in high-performing health systems like the Cleveland Clinic. The legislation also expands the use of telehealth services and incentivizes participation in disease management programs. Finally, the NDAA expands and improves access to care by requiring a standardized appointment system in military treatment facilities and creating more options for patients to get health care in the private sector. Taken together, these reforms, along with many others in the bill, will improve access to and quality of care for servicemembers and their families and retirees and their families, and they will improve the military and combat medical readiness of our force and reduce rising health care costs for the Department of Defense. This entails some difficult decisions. The NDAA makes significant changes to the services' medical command structures and right-sizes the costly military health system infrastructure, and, yes, the NDAA asks some beneficiaries to pay a little more for a better health system. Let me make three brief points. First, Active-Duty servicemembers will not pay for any health care services or prescription drugs they receive, and the NDAA does not increase the cost of health care by a single cent for families of active-duty servicemembers enrolled in TRICARE Prime. There will continue to be no enrollment fees for their health care coverage. All beneficiaries, including retirees and their families, will continue to receive health care services and prescription drugs free of charge in military hospitals and clinics. Second, the NDAA does ask working-aged retirees, many of whom are pursuing a second career, to pay a little more. Increases in annual enrollment fees for TRICARE Choice are phased in over time, and there are modest increases in pharmacy copays at retail pharmacies and for brand-name drugs through the mail-order pharmacy. It is important to remember that 68 percent of retirees live within the service area of a military hospital or clinic where they will continue to enjoy no co- pays for prescription drugs, and all military retirees have access to the mail-order pharmacy, where they can access a 90-day supply of generic prescriptions free of charge through fiscal year 2019. Third, while some military retirees will pay a little more, the guiding principle of this reform effort is that we would not ask beneficiaries to pay more unless they receive greater value in return-- better access, better care, and better health outcomes. The NDAA delivers on that promise. Modernizing the military health system is part of the NDAA's focus on sustaining the quality of life of our military servicemembers, retirees, and their families. The NDAA authorizes a 1.6-percent pay raise for our troops and reauthorizes over 30 types of bonuses and special pays. The legislation restructures and enhances leave for military parents to care for a new child, and it provides stability for the families of our fallen by permanently extending the special survivor indemnity allowance. No widow should have to worry year to year that she or he may not receive the offset of the so-called widows' tax. If this NDAA becomes law, he or she will never have to worry about that. The NDAA also implements the recommendations of the Department of Defense Military Justice Review Group by incorporating the Military Justice Act of 2016. The legislation modernizes the military court- martial trial and appellate practice, incorporates best practices from Federal criminal practice and procedures, and increases transparency and independent review in the military justice system. Taken together, the provisions contained in the NDAA constitute the most significant reforms to the Uniform Code of Military Justice in a generation. Among the many military personnel policy provisions in the NDAA, there is one that has already attracted some controversy. That, of course, is the provision in the NDAA that requires women to register for Selective Service to the same extent as men beginning in 2018. Earlier this year, the Department of Defense lifted the ban on women serving in ground combat units. After months of rigorous oversight, a large bipartisan majority in the Armed Services Committee agreed that there is simply no further justification to limit Selective Service registration to men. That is not just my view but the view of every single one of our military service chiefs, including the Army Chief of Staff and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. There will likely be further debate on this issue. As it unfolds, we must never forget that women have served honorably in our military for years. They filled critical roles in every branch of our military. Some have served as pilots, like Martha McSally, who flew combat missions in Afghanistan. Some served as logisticians, like the Presiding Officer, Senator Joni Ernst, who ran convoys into Iraq. Others have served as medics, intelligence officers, nuclear engineers, boot camp instructors, and more. Many of these women have served in harm's way, and many women have made the ultimate sacrifice, including 160 killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. As we uphold our commitment to the well-being of our servicemembers and their families, we must also uphold our commitment to American taxpayers. As part of the committee's comprehensive effort to root out and eliminate wasteful spending and improve the Department of Defense acquisition system, the NDAA imposes strict oversight measures on programs such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber, the Ford-class aircraft carrier, and the littoral combat ship. These provisions will ensure accountability for results, promote transparency, protect taxpayers, and drive the Department to deliver our warfighters the capabilities they need on time, as promised, and at reasonable costs. The NDAA also upholds America's commitment to its allies and partners. It authorizes $3.4 billion to support our Afghan partners as they fight to preserve the gains of the last 15 years and defeat the terrorists who seek to destabilize the region and attack American interests. The legislation provides $1.3 billion for counter-ISIL operations. The NDAA fully supports the European Reassurance Initiative to increase the capability and readiness of U.S. and NATO forces to deter and, if necessary, respond to Russian aggression. It also authorizes up to $500 million in security assistance to Ukraine, including lethal assistance. We should give the Ukrainian people the ability to defend themselves. Finally, the legislation includes $239 million for U.S.-Israel cooperative missile defense programs. As we continue to support allies and partners against common threats, the NDAA makes major reforms to the Pentagon's complex and unwieldy security cooperation enterprise, which has complicated the Department of Defense's ability to effectively prioritize, plan, execute, and oversee these activities. This legislation also makes sure we are not providing support to adversaries like Russia. The United States' assured access to space continues to rely on Russian rocket engines. Purchasing these engines provides a financial benefit to Vladimir Putin's cronies, including individuals who have been sanctioned by the United States, and it subsidizes the Russian military industrial base. This is unacceptable at a time when Russia continues to occupy Crimea, destabilize Ukraine, menace our NATO allies, violate the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and bomb moderate rebels in Syria. That is why the NDAA repeals a provision from last year's Omnibus appropriations bill that furthered dependence on Russia. Once the nine Russian rocket engines allowed by the past two NDAAs are expended, the Defense Department would be required to achieve assured access to space without the use of rocket engines designed or manufactured in Russia. In testimony before the committee, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of the Air Force each confirmed that the United States can meet its assured access to space requirements without the use of Russian rocket engines. We do not have to rely on Russia for access to space. Given the urgency of eliminating reliance on Russian engines, the NDAA will allow for up to half of the funds for the development of a replacement launch vehicle or propulsion system to be made available for offsetting any potential increase in launch costs as a result of prohibitions on Russian rocket engines. With $1.2 billion budgeted over the next 5 years, we can cover the costs of ending our reliance on Russia while developing the next generation of American space launch capabilities. Finally, the legislation takes several steps to bolster border security and homeland defense. It authorizes $688 million for Department of Defense counterdrug programs. It enhances information sharing and operational coordination between the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. It provides additional support for the U.S. Southern Command, and it continues support for the U.S.- Israel anti-tunneling cooperation program, which helps to improve our efforts to restrict the flow of drugs across the U.S. southern border. I say to my colleagues: This is an ambitious piece of legislation, and it is one that reflects the growing threats to our Nation. Everything about the NDAA is threat driven--everything, that is, but its top line of $602 billion. That is an arbitrary figure set by last year's budget agreement, having nothing to do with events in the world, and which itself was a product of 5 years of letting politics, not strategy, determine the level of funding for our national defense. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs GEN Martin Dempsey described last year's defense budget as ``the lower ragged edge of manageable risks.'' Yet here we are 1 year later with defense spending arbitrarily capped at $17 billion below what our military needed and planned for last year. I don't know what lies beneath the lower ragged edge of manageable, but this is what I fear it means--that our military is becoming less and less able to deter conflict and that if, God forbid, deterrence does fail somewhere and we end up in conflict, our Nation will deploy young Americans into battle without sufficient training or equipment to fight a war that will take longer, be larger, cost more, and ultimately claim more American lives than it otherwise would have. That is the growing risk we face, and for the sake of the men and women serving in our military, we cannot change course soon enough. The Senate will have the opportunity to do just that when we consider my amendment to reverse the budget-driven cuts to the capabilities of our Armed Forces that are needed to defend the Nation. I hope we will seize this opportunity. We ask a lot of our men and women in uniform, and they never let us down. We must not let them down. As we move forward with consideration of the NDAA, I stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this important legislation and give our military the resources they need and deserve. Again, I note the presence of my esteemed colleague and friend, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, without whom this legislation would not have been possible. It happens to be a source of great pride to me--and I hope to Americans who believe that we are bitterly divided--that as an example of defending this Nation and providing for men and women whom we send into harm's way, the Senator from Rhode Island and I have developed a partnership that I believe has been incredibly productive. Without the kind of partnership that I have enjoyed with my friend from Rhode Island, it would not have been possible to produce this legislation, which is obviously the most important obligation we have, and that is to defend the Nation. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. All I can say is that the FDA has been doing this job for years and has intercepted banned compounds in foreign imported catfish, and I would point out that the USDA has encountered problems in domestic catfish as well.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this morning we will be voting on a joint resolution of disapproval for the rule that establishes the U.S. Department of Agriculture's catfish inspection program. As I mentioned yesterday, I would remind my colleagues that the General Accounting Office, a watchdog organization we rely on for their views, particularly on fiscal issues and matters--and I think that of all the institutions of government right now, probably the GAO is arguably the most respected--GAO has warned in 10 different reports between 2009 and 2016 that ``the responsibility of inspecting catfish should not be assigned to the USDA,'' calling the program ``wasteful'' of tax dollars and ``duplicative'' of the FDA's existing inspections on all other seafood products. That is an interesting item, I say to my colleagues. The FDA performs inspections on every seafood product that comes into the United States of America. And guess what. There is only one, and that is catfish. Let's be very blunt about the reality. The reality of this is to stop the competition from foreign sources--specifically one of which is the country of Vietnam--from coming into this country. It isn't much more complicated than that when you see that there is only one. And by the way, that only one, according to the GAO, cost the taxpayers $19.9 million to develop and study the inspection program, and the GAO says it will cost the Federal Government an additional $14 million annually to run the program. The GAO found that the Food and Drug Administration currently spends less than $700,000 annually to inspect catfish. So, according to my calculations, over $13 million a year will be saved by doing away with this duplicative inspection program. I noticed in the vote yesterday that a majority of my colleagues on this side of the aisle who call themselves fiscal conservatives, including the Chair, have said: Well, we want to keep this duplicative program. That is fine with me, if that is your view, but then don't come to the floor and call yourself a fiscal conservative if you are willing to spend $14 million a year that is not needed and not wanted and is clearly duplicative and especially is earmarked for a special interest--i.e., the catfish industry in Southern States. So vote however you want, but don't come back to the floor when you see a duplicative or wasteful program and say you are all for saving the taxpayers' dollars, because you are voting to spend $14 million of the taxpayers' dollars on a duplicative and unnecessary program. Don't wonder why only 12 percent of the American people approve of what we do. The reason is because we allow programs such as this, where parochial interests override what is clearly the national interest and the taxpayers' interest. That is why the Center for Individual Freedom, the National Taxpayers Union, the Heritage Foundation, the Taxpayers for Protection Alliance, the Campaign for Liberty, the Independent Women's Forum, the National Taxpayers Union, the Taxpayers for Common Sense, and on and on, are all totally in favor of this resolution. Every watchdog organization in this town and in this country favors this resolution. I also point out that one of the arguments my dear friend from Mississippi will raise again is that somehow, unless we have this special office, this specific office for inspecting catfish, there will be a problem with the safety of the catfish that are imported into this country. In classic farm bill politics, proponents worked up specious talking points about how Americans need a whole new government agency to inspect catfish imports. As a result, USDA has begun operating a program that will require foreign importers to adjust the catfish program over a period of 5 to 7 years while the USDA duplicates the FDA's inspection program.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe that the other side of the aisle has been informed that, at noon, I will ask that we move forward with the bill. Mr. President, it is my understanding now that, most likely, the Democratic leader will object to moving forward with the defense authorization bill. That is deeply regrettable. That is, in fact, confounding to me; that even though there may be differences on the other side of the aisle, that we would not move forward, given the situation in the world today and the men and women who are serving in our military. I would remind my colleagues that this legislation was passed through the committee with a unanimous vote from the Democrats and under the leadership of my friend from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, who has also served this Nation honorably in uniform, albeit, poorly educated. The fact is, we have a tradition the Senator from Rhode Island and I have been scrupulously observing; that is, to work in a bipartisan fashion for the good of the country. I would mention a couple of things. One is the Democratic leader yesterday or the day before said they hadn't had time to read the bill. The bill has been online since last Wednesday--last Wednesday, a week ago. Obviously, that seems to be sufficient time for most to be able to examine the bill. We have been on the floor explaining it. There have been press releases. There have been all kinds of examination of the legislation. As has been pointed out, we have had legislation when the Democratic leader was in the majority that we never saw until the time he demanded a vote, particularly when they had 60 votes in order to override any objections that we might have--including, by the way, the passage of the now-disastrous ACA, or known to some of us as ObamaCare, which now we are seeing the catastrophic consequences, including our citizens seeing dramatic increases in their premiums to the point where it is simply unaffordable, and there is more to come. The fact is, after 13 hearings with 52 witnesses, a unanimous vote on the other side, 3 in opposition on my side, we came up with a defense authorization bill. The defense authorization bill has reached the President's desk and has been signed by the President for 53 years. In my view, there is no greater example over that 53-year period of the ability of both sides to work together for the good of the country. Here we have, just recently, what appears to be--most evidence indicates--a terrorist act, the blowing up of an airliner. We have almost unprecedented suicide attacks in the city of Baghdad, which have killed over 1,000 people in the last year. We have ISIS metastasizing throughout the region, including Libya, and now rearing its ugly head in Afghanistan. We have a situation of abuse of human rights that is almost unprecedented. We have a migrant refugee flow into Europe, which obviously it is well known that Mr. Baghdadi has instructed some of these young men and possibly young women to be prepared to commit acts of terror in European and American countries. Already, some of those plots have been foiled. The Director of National Intelligence has testified before our committee that the world is in more crises than at any time since the end of World War II; that there are more refugees in the world than at any time since the end of World War II; that America is in danger of terrorist attacks. Whom do we rely on? We rely on the men and women who are serving in the military. That is why we passed, on a vote of 24 to 3 through the Senate Armed Services Committee--work on both sides in a cooperative and bipartisan fashion--the Defense authorization bill. You would think that all of those facts would argue for us to take up this bill immediately and debate and vote. That is what the Senate is supposed to do. That is what our Founding Fathers had in mind. So, again, the Democratic leader is going to object to us moving forward. Why in the world, with the world as it is today, with the challenges we face, with the men and women who are serving our Nation in uniform with courage--one of whom is a citizen of my own State who was just killed--why are we blocking the ability of this Nation to defend, train, equip, and reward the men and women who are serving in the military? Why? Why won't we move forward and debate? We have always had lots of amendments, lots of debates, lots of votes, and we have done that every year in the years I have been here. The Democratic leader and I came to the Congress together, by my calculation, almost 34 years ago. We have had a very cordial relationship from time to time, and we have strong and spirited differences. Those differences have been honest differences of opinion because of the party and the philosophy he represents. But I must say to my friend from Nevada, I do not understand why we would not go ahead and take up this legislation and begin voting. That is what we are supposed to do. That is what has happened for 53 years where we have debated, we have gone to conference, we have voted, and it has gone to the desk of the President of the United States. A couple of times it had been vetoed, and we had gone back, but the fact is, we have done our job. What greater obligation do we have than to defend this Nation? What greater obligation do we have than to help and do whatever we can to assist the brave Americans who are serving in uniform? What is our greater obligation? I think it is clear to everyone what our obligation is. That obligation is to do our job and do our duty. The American people have a very low opinion of us--on both sides of the aisle. When they see that we are not even moving forward on legislation to protect, help, train, and equip the young men and women who have volunteered to serve this Nation in uniform, no wonder they are cynical. No wonder. We have a piece of legislation that is literally a product of hundreds of hearings, literally thousands of hours of discussion and debate, of work together on a bipartisan basis, and we are not able to move forward with it and begin the amending process. I don't get it. I say to the Democratic leader, I don't get it. I do not understand why he doesn't feel the same sense of obligation that the rest of us do; that is, as rapidly as possible, for us to take care of the men and women who are serving, meet the challenges of our national security that our larger--according to the Director of National Intelligence-- than at any time since the end of World War II. That is what I do not get. Maybe the Democratic leader will illuminate us on that issue, but I don't see that there is any argument. When the Democratic leader and I meet the brave men and women who are serving in uniform--those who are at Nellis Air Force Base and in Yuma at Luke Air Force Base--and tell them that we wouldn't move forward with legislation that was to protect and house and feed and train those men and women, I would be very interested in the response the Democratic leader might have to that. I urge my friend of many years--for the last 34 years--to allow us to move forward and begin debate on this very important issue. I know of no greater obligation we have than to address this issue of national security, which is embodied in the Defense Authorization Act. In all these 34 years, I have never objected to moving forward with this legislation. I have had disagreements. I have had strong problems with some of the provisions. But I thought it was important to debate and vote. I urge my colleagues not to object. The bill has been available for people's perusal for over a week now. Everybody knows the major points of the bill. So I hope the Democratic leader will not use that as a flimsy excuse because it is not one. But most importantly, I appeal to my colleague from Nevada to think of the men and women in uniform who are serving our country and to think of our obligation to act as best we can to protect them and help them carry out their responsibilities and their duties as they go into harm's way. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be yielded back and that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 2943.

Mr. McCAIN. If my colleague will yield, I believe you have served the State of Nevada and this Nation with honor.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that LCDR Amy M. Gabriel, a Navy fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the Senate debate on the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2017.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I move to proceed to S.J. Res. 28.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their vote to move to this resolution. I think we can count this, frankly, as a victory for the American taxpayer rather than certain special interests. I would like to begin by making clear in the Record the groups that are supporting this resolution: the National Retail Federation, the Food Marketing Institute, Taxpayers for Protection Alliance, National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Heritage Foundation, FreedomWorks, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, Citizens Against Government Waste, Center for Individual Freedom, Independent Women's Voice, R Street Institute, Campaign for Liberty, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the American Frozen Food Institute, and the list goes on and on and on. Ten times--ten times--the Government Accountability Office has said the same thing over and over, and that is that this program is duplicative and it is unnecessary. It is unfortunate we are spending tens of millions of dollars every year on a program that is duplicative and unnecessary. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Wall Street Journal editorial entitled ``Ending the Catfish Fight.''