John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Good. I hope we can do that. I again thank the leader from New York, who has been very cooperative to me and to the Senator from Rhode Island as we have moved forward with this legislation. I thank him. Training Accident at Camp Pendleton Mr. President, I wish to begin by offering my thoughts and prayers to the marines who were injured yesterday when their amphibious assault vehicle caught fire during a training exercise at Camp Pendleton in California. With 15 marines hospitalized and 5 in critical condition, I join all of my colleagues in hoping for a full and speedy recovery for each of these brave young servicemembers. Last night, unfortunately, the majority leader was required to file cloture on the National Defense Authorization Act for 2018. We have gotten a lot done in the short time this legislation has been on the floor. I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that it is my hope that we will be able to do more. I thank my friend from Rhode Island. I thank Members who have been very helpful and cooperative in this effort, as we have considered a 27-to-0 vote through the committee. It passed unanimously. We have engaged in spirited, thoughtful debate, and we have ultimately adopted 277 amendments from both Republicans and Democrats. I sound like a broken record, but this is the way the Senate should conduct business. The authorizing committee reports out legislation that has been examined with hearings and debate and amendments, and it appears on the floor, and we have additional debates and amendments, and people can vote yes or no, but they are informed. It is a violation of our oath of office when we are told that one- fifth of the gross national product--i.e. healthcare--is going to be decided by a ``skinny repeal'' that none of us had seen until an hour or two before. That is not the way the Senate should do business. We are not perfect. We are going to have to invoke cloture on this bill. We are not going to have some debate and votes on some very important--at least four--issues. But while we have been on this bill, we have adopted 277 amendments. We had hours and hours of hearings. We had a week of putting this bill together on a bipartisan basis, and it was reported out by over one- quarter of the Senate, to zero. That is the way we should be doing business. I will freely admit that national security probably is at a higher level of importance--and should be--than the average legislation, but shouldn't we learn from this that if we sit down together, we argue, we fight, we debate, and then we reach consensus, we come to the floor of the Senate and to the American people with something that we are proud of and that we can defend? As I mentioned, there are still some issues that we are negotiating on, back and forth--and we are negotiating--and hopefully we can get those done before cloture is invoked. I hope the majority leader and the Democratic leader will agree to a time certain for final passage. Let me just say that I support beginning to move toward final passage, which will provide our Armed Forces the resources they need. By the way, again, I want to emphasize that on the Armed Services Committee, we have had dozens of hearings on topics such as the global threat environment, the effects of defense budget cuts, and military readiness and modernization. Those hearings informed the work of the committee as we moved toward the legislation. I know that all of us from time to time like to take credit for accomplishments that maybe we are not as responsible for as we would advertise, but I want to say that I am not just proud of John McCain and Jack Reed, I am proud of the 27 members of the Armed Services Committee who--and the debate was spirited. It is not the Bobbsey Twins. We fight in a spirited fashion. We defend what we believe in. But once the committee is decided, then we move on. So my colleagues have embraced the spirit of that process, and we have submitted more than 500 amendments for consideration this week. The Senator from Rhode Island and I negotiated a number of very good amendments that have the support of both Republicans and Democrats. We still have some hard issues that are remaining, and I will be talking more about them. We are still negotiating to see if we can find agreement on those, and I am guardedly optimistic we can get most of that agreement done. We will know more later on this morning or early this afternoon. Let me also point out to my colleagues what we are talking about. We have seen Navy ships, Army, and Marine Corps helicopters, Air Force planes crashing during routine training and operations, and these incidents have cost the lives of dozens of our men and women in uniform. There are many reasons for these tragedies, but the one this body cannot avoid responsibility for is that we are failing to provide our military with the resources they need to perform the missions we are asking of them. We are asking them to do too much with too little. The result is an overworked, strained force with aging equipment--and not enough of it. We can point fingers and assign blame all we want, but at the end of the day, the constitutional responsibility to raise moneys and maintain Navies lies with us, with the Congress. That, of course, brings up sequestration, which I will address later on. I just want to point out, again, the men and women who wear the uniform of our country are the best of our country, and they do everything we ask of them with great courage. It is time for this body to show a similar measure of courage and end the threat sequestration poses to their mission and their lives. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from New York. I thank him for the cooperation we have gotten in the consideration of this important legislation. I would just ask the Democratic leader, is it reasonable to assume that we could finish this up today or set a time for it on Monday?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode Island, my dear friend, Jack Reed, is too kind. It takes two to tango. The partnership we have developed over the years has made it possible for us to get to the place we have in the past and we are today. He has not only my gratitude but that of the men and women who are serving because of his advocacy and his leadership. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota. She has been an advocate on this issue for a number of years. Obviously, as she stated with some articulation, we are talking about the fundamental of democracy, and the threat to it has probably never been greater. She also understands there is an issue of germaneness and committees of responsibility and all that, but I want to tell the Senator from Minnesota that I appreciate her advocacy. This issue is not going away. I look forward to continuing to work with her because this is really-- it may be in some ways one of the greatest threats to democracy we have faced, and I know she has been an advocate on this issue for a number of years. I thank her. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me state the bottom line up front. This year's NDAA, once again, focuses medical research dollars on the needs of servicemembers and military veterans, and it increases transparency on how these taxpayer funds are being spent. The amendment of the Senator from Illinois would take hundreds of millions of dollars away from defense needs to spend it on research activities totally unrelated to the mission of the military and shield these activities from critical oversight by the Department and the Congress. Let me state this up front: If these medical research dollars were invested in the proper branch of government, I would be one of its strongest supporters. What we are seeing here--what we see so often--is the Willie Sutton syndrome. They asked Willie Sutton: Why do you rob banks? He said: That is where the money is. Why do you think medical research for autism, spinal cord injury, prosthetics, or many others have nothing to do with defense? Let's take it out. Let's appropriate the right amount of money to the right branch of government. So while we are watching the defense dollars--thanks to sequestration--going down over the last 20 years, Congress has provided more than $11.7 billion in medical research. According to--what is aptly named over in Defense--the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs, 12 out of 28 current research programs do not mention the military, combat, or servicemembers and their official mission or vision statements. So let me repeat this for the benefit of my colleagues. Spending on medical research at the Department of Defense, nearly 15 percent of which has nothing to do with the military, has grown 4,000 percent since 1992--4,000 percent. So in the meantime, the Budget Control Act is constraining the DOD budget. It has done great harm to our military. Every single service chief and combatant commander over the last 5 years has testified to the Armed Services Committee that the budget caps imposed by BCA have hurt our military readiness and have made it more difficult to respond to the Nation's growing threats. Yet, during this time of severe defense budget restrictions, funding for the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs has nearly doubled. Is that our priority? I suggest to the Senator from Illinois: Why don't you go to the right place in the appropriations bill and allocate research funds there? Why don't you do that? You are not going there because it is the Willie Sutton syndrome. What you are doing is you are taking away from the men and women serving in the military what they need to defend this Nation.

Mr. McCAIN. No, I will not yield. The fact is that we have now had a rash of fatal accidents in the military--10 from the USS McCain and 17 more. We now have many more accidents due to the lack of readiness, training, and maintenance than we do in combat. So what do we do? Do we stop cutting the military? No, we add $11.7 billion for medical research. I am for medical research. I know of no one who opposes medical research, but do we take it out of defense? This is the directed spending on medical research at the Department of Defense. You may see that in 1992 it was a small amount of money for breast cancer research. Like other government programs, it has grown and grown and grown. If you will take a look at the pink side here, you will see that what also has grown is those programs that have no relevance to the military. I want to say it one more time. No, I will say it again and again and again. If the Senator from Illinois wants this money spent for medical research, then, take it out of the right place. Don't be Willie Sutton. Take it from where it belongs, instead of taking it from the men and women in the military who are undermanned, undertrained, underequipped, and in harm's way. So you have a choice here, my dear friends. Yes, who could be against medical research? Nobody who I know. But who could be in favor of taking money from the men and women and their training, equipment, and readiness, when every single service chief has testified before the Armed Services Committee that we are putting the lives of men and women serving in the military at greater risk? So we are going to see these billions of dollars taken out of defending the Nation and the arms, the training, and the equipment that the men and women in the military need. Now, if the Senator from Illinois wants to fund those that are militarily relevant, I would be glad to go along with that, but see what has grown and grown and grown from 1992, when it was $25 million. Now it is billions of dollars. Let's see. Funding has increased by 4,000 percent from $25 million in 1992 to over $1 billion last year. Spending on medical research--nearly 50 percent of which has nothing to do with the military--has grown 4,000 percent since 1992. So let's not say that we are shorting the men and women in the military when that spending has increased by 4,000 percent. Again, I would like every one of my colleagues to listen to the leaders of our military and to the men and women who are serving. They don't have enough training. They don't have enough equipment. They are not ready, and it is being reflected in these kinds of accidents where we are killing more members of the military in training than we are in combat, and every one of the service chiefs will tell you that it is because of lack of funding for training and readiness and maintenance. This has to stop. The NDAA this year prohibits the Secretary of Defense and the service Secretaries from funding or conducting a medical research and development project unless they certify that the project would protect, enhance, or restore the health and safety of members of the Armed Forces. Is that an outrageous requirement that we should spend tax dollars that are for defense that would actually be used for defense? Wouldn't that be outrageous? So it requires that medical research projects are open to competition and comply with other DOD, or Department of Defense, cost accounting standards. So we are not only asking them to be responsible but to comply with other Department of Defense cost accounting standards. So why that should be unacceptable, I don't know. So the Senator from Illinois has submitted an amendment that would strike these requirements--it would strike these requirements--to adhere to the Department of Defense cost accounting standards. Why? Why would you not want to go along with cost accounting standards? So it is certainly not an accident that the largest spike in congressionally directed medical research funding coincides with the tenure of the Senator from Illinois as chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee Defense Subcommittee, in which, I say, he has done an outstanding job. Hundreds of millions of dollars in the defense budget will be used for medical research unrelated to defense, and it was not requested by the administration. If this amendment passes, hundreds of millions of dollars will be taken away from military servicemembers and their families. If this amendment passes, hundreds of millions of dollars will not be used to provide a full 2.1-percent pay raise for our troops. It will not be used to build up the size of our Army and Marine Corps. It will not be used to buy equipment so that our airmen don't have to steal spare parts of airplanes in the boneyard to keep the oldest, smallest, and least ready Air Force in our history in the air. So I say to my friend and colleague from Illinois, it is not that he is wrong to support medical research. We all support medical research. It is that he has proposed the wrong amendment to support medical research. Instead of proposing to take away hundreds of millions of dollars from our military servicemembers, he should be proposing a way to begin the long overdue process of shifting nonmilitary medical research spending out of the Department of Defense and into the appropriate civilian departments and agencies of our government. I want to emphasize again that this debate is not about the value of this medical research or whether Congress should support it. I, of all people, know the miracle of modern medicine and am grateful for all who support it, and I am sure every Senator understands the value of medical research to Americans suffering from these diseases and to the family and friends who care for them and to all those who know the pain and grief of losing a loved one. But I will repeat again that this research does not belong in the Department of Defense. It belongs in civilian departments and agencies of our government. So I say to my colleagues that the National Defense Authorization Act focuses the Department's research efforts on medical research that will lead to lifesaving advancements in battlefield medicine and new therapies for recovery and rehabilitation of servicemembers wounded on the battlefield. This amendment would harm our national security. The amendment of the Senator from Illinois would harm our national security by reducing the funding available for militarily relevant medical research that helps protect servicemen and servicewomen on the battlefield and for military capabilities they desperately need to perform their missions. It would continue to put decision-making about medical research in the hands of lobbyists and politicians, instead of medical experts where it belongs. I would like to repeat for at least the fifth time that I strongly support funding for medical research. I do not support funding for medical research that has nothing to do with the Department of Defense. The dollars are too scarce. You can see the way that it has gone up and up and up. So what we are trying to do is to preserve medical research where it applies to the Department of Defense and not use it for every other program, which should be funded by other agencies of government. I am very aware of the power and influence of the lobbyists who lobby for this kind of money, knowing full well that this is the easiest place to get the money. I just hope that some of us would understand that 10 sailors just died onboard the USS John S. McCain. They died because that ship was not ready, not trained, not equipped, and not capable of doing its job because they didn't have enough funding. Let's get our priorities straight. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I object. Go ahead.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the majority leader for all the support and assistance we have been given on this issue. Of course, I regret that we finally had to turn to cloture. The fact is that we have incorporated over 100 amendments offered by Senators of both parties, and it means the NDAA becomes stronger as a result of including these amendments. Second, the process took a step in the right direction, as Senators were able to have their voices and opinions heard and reflected in this legislation. I wish we had never had to come to voting for cloture, but I wish to say that we have made enormous progress. We have had debate. We have had amendments. We have had votes. All of these are the ``regular order'' that some of us have been arguing for that the U.S. Senate--in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. I am very appreciative of the cooperation of Members on both sides, including Senator Reed. I believe we can be proud of our product. It came down to about four amendments on which we could never get agreement to move forward--that compared to the over 100 amendments we were able to adopt. I still wish we had been able to go completely through this process without having to resort to cloture, but I do want to thank Members on both sides--as we approach cloture--for their cooperation, for their involvement, for their engagement, and for their dedication to the men and women who are serving us in the military. We look forward to the next hours. We will have debate and hopefully some amendments proposed, vote cloture, and have it completed sometime early next week. The work that needs to be done will be done, accomplished before then. I thank all my colleagues for their participation. I thank them for their engagement and involvement. I am proud of this product, which comes after hundreds of hours of hearings, of negotiation, of discussion, and of debate, because it proves that the first priority of Members on both sides of the aisle is the men and women in the military and their ability to defend the Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, there be 10 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form, and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment No. 1003, as modified.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. I thank her for her agreement that we should move forward with this important legislation, and I am very proud of the way this legislation has proceeded before the Senate most of the way. But now I am not very proud because we are now not allowing Senators to have a vote. I do not agree with the amendment from the Senator from Wisconsin, but I strongly believe she should have the right to have her amendment considered, debated, and voted on. I am very proud of the fact that we have approved and agreed to 103 amendments. We still have three or four amendments that have caused us to be where we are today. It will be a conference item, the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin, and although I do not agree with it, I will certainly make sure that it is part of the conference. But I want to remind my colleagues again that one of the reasons we had 107 votes for and 0 against is that we went through a process of days, weeks, and months of hearings, study, debate, discussion, and bringing it to the floor. That is the way the Senate should work. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin, and I want to tell her and the Senator from New York, Mrs. Gillibrand, that I will continue to do everything I can to make sure they are given the rights that they earned by being elected in the States they represent.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have no further use of the time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I modify my amendment with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up substitute amendment No. 1003.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand Senator Paul is on his way to discuss his amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the following Members to be recognized for debate: 15 minutes for Senator Cardin, 5 minutes for Senator Murphy, 7 minutes for Senator Moran, and 15 minutes for Senator Paul, and that following Senator Paul, Senator Corker be recognized.

Mr. McCAIN. For the information of my colleagues, in approximately 45 minutes, the Senate will have a vote on a motion to table the Paul amendment, which means around 12:15 p.m.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want to discuss the amendment, which has to do with the importance of the authorization for use of military force in the ongoing U.S. operations against violent extremist organizations. First of all, it is important to acknowledge why our current fight against terrorism is necessary. Earlier this week, we commemorated the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, which took the lives of thousands of innocent Americans, shook our Nation to its core, and, importantly, brought us together in common resolve to make sure that kind of tragedy would never, ever happen again. In pursuit of that noble goal, thousands of brave men and women in uniform are currently deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other places. No matter what else we do in this body and on this legislation, we must always ask ourselves if we are doing everything we can to support those servicemembers as they risk their lives to defend us. At the same time, we must recognize the ways in which the current conflict is different from when Congress passed the first authorization for use of military force in 2001. The landscape of the global fight against terrorism has changed dramatically with the emergence of ISIS and the spread of the threat beyond Afghanistan and Iraq. That is why I and many others have long called for updating the AUMFs. Yet the nature of the conflict remains the same: Terrorist organizations continue to warp the religion of Islam and promote a radical ideology to recruit new fighters and plot violent attacks as part of their jihad against the United States of America and all that we stand for. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am open to a process that would develop a new AUMF specific to the current fight against ISIS and other terrorist organizations as identified by the administration. I would be very willing to work with my colleagues, including the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, as well as the Senator from Kentucky, to ensure that the legislation proceeded under regular order and included hearings, a committee markup, and a floor amendment process that ensured that each Member of this body was able to have his or her voice heard. Haven't we had enough of bringing things to the floor without hearings, without amendments, without debate? I am confident that an overwhelming bipartisan majority of my colleagues would agree to approve the use of military force against the vicious, brutal enemy that we face in ISIS and its associated forces. The amendment before us now falls far, far short of that process. Repealing the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs without simultaneously passing a new authorization would be premature, it would be irresponsible, it would threaten U.S. national security, and it would inhibit our democracy- building efforts abroad. As we speak, we have troops deployed overseas who are engaged in the fight against ISIS, al-Qaida, the Taliban, and other violent extremist organizations. Repealing the existing AUMFs without having a replacement would jeopardize the legal authority for ongoing military operations. I cannot stand by silently as this body considers taking any action that would put our currently deployed servicemembers at risk. It is also important to recognize that adopting this amendment would embolden our enemies and would send a signal to the members of the U.S. Armed Forces who are serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere that Congress and the American public no longer support their mission and their sacrifice. We cannot send that message, because it is not true. In closing, I agree with those who support this amendment that the time has come for a new authorization for use of military force in the global fight against terrorism, but this amendment is, simply, not the way to do it. Rather than repealing the existing AUMFs without passing a new authorization, I urge my colleagues to work together on a new, bipartisan AUMF that addresses the threats we face today. There are many Members on both sides of the aisle who have been working together on AUMFS, including the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. That is a process in which I would be proud to participate, and it is one that would honor those who are currently deployed in harm's way, fighting to make sure that our Nation never sees another day like 9/11. But I cannot support anything that fails to provide our men and women in uniform with everything they need-- including the legal authority--to keep our Nation safe.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I again thank my friend and colleague, Senator Jack Reed, for the continued cooperation which has characterized our work together. First, I wish to say that this modification to the substitution amendment that I am offering, with the agreement and support of Senator Reed, includes 48 amendments from both Republicans and Democrats that will help improve this legislation. The modification submitted this morning included 56 amendments, also evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. I want to emphasize that these amendments which were just included are the result of bipartisan agreement on both sides. They would not have been proposed if they hadn't already been agreed to. This means that now we have incorporated 104 bipartisan amendments in this legislation. The amendments have the support of both Republicans and Democrats in strengthening this legislation, making the NDAA more reflective of the voices and opinions of all Members of the Senate. So I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for allowing us--helping us come up with these amendments which tremendously improve the underlying legislation. But I must say that we are at an impasse on about four amendments, all four of which are very important amendments, and we simply can't get agreement, which will probably call for the majority leader to file cloture. I really wish we weren't filing cloture. I wish we were treating amendments the way we treated the Chair's amendment earlier today. Every Senator should have the right to speak and to vote on any issue that comes before this body, and that includes amendments. Unfortunately, the majority leader will have to file cloture, we will go through a period of time, and then we will move forward with the bill, which, in my view, could be finished tomorrow. The bad news is that not every Senator is able to be heard and able to file amendments--second-degree, whatever it is. They are going to be shut out by the cloture procedure. That is not right. It is not right. Every one of these 100 Senators should be able to vote, to amend, and to debate. That is what the Senate is supposed to be all about. There are four basic amendments, and I won't describe them, but I hope that overnight my colleagues on both sides can sit down and figure out, as we have on a number of amendments, a way that we can reach a point where we can have up-or-down votes on these amendments, which are important to the Nation, particularly when we are talking about the National Defense Authorization Act. So I again thank the Senator from Rhode Island, my partner. I thank him for all the work he is doing and ask him if he has any suggestions or ideas.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Rhode Island, and I thank him for the relationship we have developed over the years. Here is the deal: We have basically four amendments--which are important amendments, and I don't mean in any way to denigrate their importance--that are forcing us to go to a mode where there will be no other amendments voted on. By failing to reach an agreement, we are shutting out our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and preventing them from having their amendments considered. That is why cloture is not a good thing. Cloture should be an act of desperation, and we should not be shutting out debate or amendments by any Member of the Senate. I have talked a lot about the need to work on a bipartisan basis. I have talked a lot--let's do the regular order, committee markups, debate, legislation to the floor, debate, amendments, and then sent to the President of the United States. I believe we can still do that. I believe the progress we have made on this bill indicates that. But I hope my colleagues think about the fact that we ought to be able to decide, as we have on numerous aspects of this bill on a bipartisan basis, either to agree or to have those amendments debated and voted on. What we do when we invoke cloture is we silence Senators. That is not the way our Founding Fathers envisioned the Senate would function. But I also would like to say that there are 104 amendments that we did agree to in a bipartisan fashion. I think we can be very happy about that. But there are still three or four salient issues that I wish we could just go ahead and debate and vote on, as we already have on a couple of very tough issues. I thank all my colleagues for their cooperation. I thank them for our ability to get in all of these amendments. I am grateful for the votes we have taken. I hope that overnight, even though the majority leader will file cloture--and I support that--we should think overnight if there are ways of resolving the existing differences--not in agreement but to move forward with debate and votes. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I thank my friend from Rhode Island. I hope we keep upmost in mind that what we are doing here affects the lives, the welfare, the benefits, and the capabilities of the finest in our society, the finest in America--the men and women in uniform. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York, with whom I have had the pleasure and displeasure of working on many occasions. He is a strong advocate for what he believes in. Yet, over the years I have worked with him, his word is good, and when it comes to tough discussion and agreement and when agreement is reached, he sticks to his word, and that is an important element in our ability to work together. I thank the Senator from New York for his efforts in bringing us together in a bipartisan fashion. I hope that what we will get done in the next few days is an example of what we can do when working together, so I thank him for his opening remarks and his advocacy in our bipartisan work together. I join my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, to speak about the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his hard work on the NDAA. I remain appreciative of the thoughtfulness with which and bipartisan spirit in which he approaches national security issues. He is a great partner, and this legislation would not be possible if it were not for his contributions and leadership. In June, the Senate Armed Services Committee passed the National Defense Authorization Act unanimously, by a vote of 27 to 0. During that process, the committee considered and adopted 277 amendments that were offered by Republicans and Democrats--some with very spirited debate and discussion. I thank each of my fellow members of the Armed Services Committee. A vote of 27 to 0 is something we can be proud of. I am tremendously proud of the committee's work. The bill, as I mentioned, passed unanimously this year for the first time in 5 years. I was especially proud of the way in which my colleagues worked to overcome differences, of the respect that each member showed for one another, and of the common commitment to support our servicemembers and help our military achieve its mission. Now we are prepared to consider the legislation on the floor under an open amendment process that will allow all Senators to have their voices heard. I thank the majority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, for bringing the NDAA to the Senate floor this week and for doing so, once again, under regular order. That means that we will have amendments, that we will have debate, that we will have spirited discussion, which is what the Senate is supposed to have. I am guardedly optimistic that at the end of this, we will complete legislation which will be better for having gone through that process and for the men and women who are now in harm's way, defending our Nation. For 55 consecutive years, Congress has passed this piece of legislation. That record speaks primarily to the importance of this legislation to our national security. I know that all of my colleagues would agree that our men and women in uniform deserve our constant support and unending thanks for their sacrifice and service. No other piece of legislation has a long history of broad, bipartisan support. In today's political climate, the passage of this legislation may be exactly what we need to remind ourselves of the important work the American people sent us here to do. The NDAA is a piece of legislation in which this body and Members on both sides of the aisle can and should take immense pride. Not only does this legislation provide our men and women in uniform with the resources they need and deserve, but it is the product of an open and bipartisan process that represents the best of the Senate, and it could not come at a more important time. The threats to our national security have not been more complex, severe, or daunting at any time in the past seven decades, and our job is to ensure that we have a military capable of meeting those threats. For too long, we have locked ourselves into making strategic decisions based on budget realities. It is time to start making budget decisions based on strategic realities. Just consider the current threats to our national security. Day after day, test after test, North Korea continues to get ever closer to developing the capability to strike the U.S. homeland with a nuclear-armed missile and continues to threaten our allies in the region. While we have made some important gains in the fight against ISIS, the campaign to achieve a lasting defeat of terrorist threats and to secure our enduring national security interests in Iraq and Syria is far from over. Iran continues to destabilize the Middle East and seeks to drive the United States out of the region. We have entered a new era of great power competition as Russia and China contest the rules-based liberal world order that is the foundation of our security and prosperity. Every day we learn more about Russia's asymmetric capabilities--from cyber attacks to disinformation campaigns--even as they modernize their military, occupy Crimea, destabilize Ukraine, and threaten our NATO allies. Meanwhile, China continues to militarize the South China Sea and modernize its own military at an alarming rate. We must not forget that we are a Nation at war, with thousands of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines deployed in harm's way in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the globe. Yet, as dangerous as these and other foreign threats are, perhaps the greatest harm to our national security and our military is self- inflicted. I repeat: self-inflicted. It is the accumulation of years of uncertain, untimely, and inadequate defense funding that has shrunk our operational forces, harmed their readiness, stunted their modernization, and, as every single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has repeatedly testified before the Committee on Armed Services, put the lives of our servicemembers at greater risk. I want to repeat that. Every one of our military leaders in uniform has said that because of what we have done with the so-called sequestration, it has put the lives of our servicemembers at greater risk. Don't we have an obligation not to do that? Now we are paying the awful price. This summer alone, 42--I repeat, 42--servicemembers tragically perished in accidents during routine training operations. On June 17, seven sailors were killed when the USS Fitzgerald collided with a container ship off the coast of Japan. On July 10, a Marine KC-130 crashed in Mississippi and killed all 16 troops on board. On August 21, 10 sailors perished when the USS McCain collided with a tanker near Singapore. On August 25, an Army Black Hawk helicopter went missing during a training mission off the coast of Yemen, and one soldier died. Just last week in Nevada, two Air Force A-10 aircraft crashed into each other. Thank God the pilots safely ejected, but the planes were lost--at a cost of over $100 million. For the two Pacific Fleet naval collisions, ship repairs are estimated to cost more than half a billion dollars. The lives lost in each of these incidents were priceless. Over the past 3 years, a total of 185 men and women in uniform have been killed in noncombat accidents. During this same period, 44 servicemembers were killed in combat. The bottom line is this, and I want all of my colleagues to concentrate on what I am about to say: We are killing more of our own people in training than our enemies are in combat. We were warned about this. We were warned. We were warned by our senior defense and military leaders and by many of us in Congress. Earlier this year, Secretary Mattis testified that ``no enemy in the field has done more to harm the combat readiness of our military than sequestration.'' Secretary Mattis went on to say: ``We are no longer managing risk; we are now gambling.'' Now, it is clear that we are not only gambling with our ability to fight and win wars. We are also gambling with the very ability of our troops to operate safely during peacetime. In that same hearing, General Dunford--I will remind my colleagues, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--described what is at stake if we continue down the path of budget cuts, saying: ``In just a few years if we don't change the trajectory, we will lose our qualitative and our quantitative competitive advantage, [and] the consequences will be profound.'' Those are not my words. They are the words of the senior general officer in the U.S. military. Each of our military service chiefs has testified time and again before congressional committees about the dangers of sequestration, Budget Control Act-level spending, and repeated continuing resolutions. The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Richardson, testified: ``Eight years of continuing resolutions including a year of sequestration have driven additional costs and time into just about everything that we do. . . . The disruption this uncertainty imposes translates directly into risks for our Navy and our nation.'' General Neller, Commandant of the Marine Corps, said: ``Sequestration impacts on key modernization programs will have catastrophic effects on achieving desired capabilities to defeat emerging threats and will place an unacceptable burden on legacy programs.'' The Air Force Chief of Staff, General Goldfein, testified: ``Repealing sequestration, returning to stable budgets without extended continuing resolutions and allowing us the flexibility to reduce excess infrastructure and make strategic trades are essential to success.'' The Army Chief of Staff, General Milley has said: ``Candidly, failure to pass a budget, in my view both as an American citizen and chief of staff of the United States Army, constitutes professional malpractice.'' ``Professional malpractice,'' he said. He added: ``A year-long CR or a return to the [Budget Control Act- level] funding will . . . increase risk to the nation, and it will ultimately result in dead Americans on a future battlefield.'' We need look no further than all of the recent training accidents, collisions, and crashes for evidence that these warnings and concerns were well placed, and the troubling signs were there. Failure to meet training requirements and fulfill safety certifications has become all too common in the force--especially in the U.S. Navy. Recent reporting details a troubled state of affairs. The GAO found that 37 percent--well over one-third--of the training certifications for U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers based in Japan are expired-- technically meaning that they are not prepared. The USS McCain had expired training certifications for 6 out of the 10 key warfare mission areas prior to its collision. The USS Fitzgerald had expired certifications for all of its 10 mission areas. Lest anyone think the Navy is the only service facing troubling readiness statistics, I will remind my colleagues that only 5--5 out of the 58--Army brigades and 4 of the 64 Air Force squadrons are combat- ready. There is plenty of responsibility to go around for the deteriorated state of our military. The Senate Armed Services Committee will continue to hold hearings and conduct rigorous oversight of these military readiness challenges, looking at everything from command responsibility to readiness standards, to training culture within our military. We will continue seeking explanations for the causes of these incidents, corrective actions to remedy these causes, and accountability from leadership. Yet we can't ignore Congress's role and our responsibility. Years of budget cuts have forced our military to try to do too much with too little. As we have asked our military to maintain a high operational tempo with limited resources, we know what has suffered: Training, maintenance, readiness, effectiveness, and the lives of too many brave young servicemembers. But despite the abundant evidence that our military faces a readiness crisis that is putting lives at risk, this body voted just last week to put the Department of Defense on yet another continuing resolution for the start of fiscal year 2018. We know that continuing resolutions cause a great deal of harm to our military. Just last week, Secretary Mattis sent a letter to the Armed Services Committee detailing the detrimental effects of a continuing resolution. He said that the impacts of a CR are felt immediately by our military and will grow exponentially over time if we repeat this mistake in December. In the next 3 months, the Navy will delay ship inductions and reduce flying hours, the Army will postpone maintenance, the Air Force will limit execution of infrastructure funding, and all services will delay training and curtail recruitment, leaving, according to Secretary Mattis, ``critical gaps in the workforce skill set.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Secretary Mattis outlining his concerns.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the vote we took to begin the year on a continuing resolution locks the Department of Defense into last year's funding level. It prevents them from reprogramming funding to meet emerging needs. It prohibits the start of new programs to modernize for future threats. Perhaps worst of all, a continuing resolution mandates a level of spending that is $89 billion less than the fiscal year 2018 funding level authorized in this legislation. When the Senate voted to put the Department of Defense on a continuing resolution, it voted in favor of the status quo for our military, where more servicemembers are dying in accidents than in all the wars we are fighting combined. Last week's vote signaled that the current, undeniably degraded state of our Armed Forces is just fine with us. It was irresponsible and unacceptable. We must all do better. Pentagon leaders must make clear-eyed assessments and ask for what they fully need, and this body must provide the resources required. That is the only way to stop gambling and restore readiness, and this is the bare minimum we owe to the brave men and women who fight to defend this Nation. That is why this legislation is more important and vital than ever. The NDAA delivers the resources, equipment, and training our men and women in uniform need to meet the increasingly complex challenges of today's world. It begins the process of truly restoring readiness and rebuilding our military. The Defense authorization bill authorizes a base defense budget that, together with the administration's request of $8 billion for other defense activities, supports a total defense budget of $640 billion in funding for the Department of Defense and the national security programs at the Department of Energy. The legislation also authorizes $60 billion for overseas contingency operations. In total, this legislation supports a national defense topline of $700 billion. This funding is critical to begin addressing the readiness shortfall and modernization crisis currently facing our military. With our adversaries investing heavily in their own militaries and developing future warfighting capabilities intended to erode our military advantage, we cannot wait any longer to recapitalize our forces and restore our capabilities. The national defense topline in this legislation is significantly higher than the administration's budget request. It is worth considering why, in committee, more than one-quarter of the Members of this body--one-quarter of the Members of this body, Senators of both parties and of all political stripes--voted for a higher defense topline. The answer is simple. Today's national security threats demand more resources. While not every crisis has a military solution, our military remains an indispensable aspect of America's ability to project power and provide the framework for global stability and security. The problem is that funding to meet these national security threats and challenges has been constrained by the arbitrary caps of the Budget Control Act. Members from both sides of the aisle have acknowledged that the Budget Control Act simply does not allow for adequate spending on national defense. While altering the Budget Control Act or the spending caps is outside of the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee, the committee has expressed its support in this legislation for the unconditional repeal of the Budget Control Act. Congress must summon the political courage to admit that this legislation has failed, rise above politics, and fix it. The Budget Control Act has not achieved its intended purpose by reducing the deficit. For years, it has prevented Congress from providing our military servicemembers with the resources they need. This cannot continue. I tell my colleagues, this cannot continue. We can, and must, do better. Under the Budget Control Act, defense spending for fiscal year 2018 would be capped at $549 billion. That is $54 billion less than what the President requested for defense and $91 billion less than what the Armed Services Committee supported. The members of the Armed Services Committee agreed unanimously that any defense budget at that level would be inadequate and unacceptable. That has been reinforced time and again over the last several years in testimony from senior military and civilian defense leaders who have come before our committee with warnings of the danger of the BCA spending caps and sequestration. At the conclusion of debate on this legislation, the Senate's passage of the NDAA has served as evidence that an overwhelming bipartisan majority of this body agrees that the status quo is not sufficient, and we need to spend more money on defense to keep our Nation safe. Even so, the unfortunate truth is, with BCA as the law of the land, $549 billion is the only defense budget that is currently legal, unless Congress acts. It is up to this Congress to decide if that is the defense budget we want. In doing so, we must remember that a BCA-level defense budget cannot give us the military we need. The President also acknowledges that a BCA-level defense budget of $549 billion is inadequate, and he campaigned on the promise of rebuilding the military. That is why it was so disappointing that the President's budget request did not deliver on the promise of the military buildup we need. The defense budget request came in at $603 billion. It is important to recognize three important factors about that number. First, it is rooted in the same arbitrary policy as $549 billion, since $603 billion is simply the original BCA cap before sequestration takes effect; second, it represents only a 3-percent increase over the Obama administration's defense budget plan; and, third, it is plainly inadequate to meet our Nation's defense needs. One indication of this is that the military services sent this Congress lists of unfunded requirements. That meant requirements they have but we are not funding, and that means over $30 billion that our military needs to do its job. It is time for Congress to do our job and provide the resources they need. What our military needs is a real buildup. The NDAA is the start of what will be a years-long process of rebuilding our military after years of devastating cuts to the defense budget. We must begin that process now. Our men and women in uniform can't afford to wait any longer. The NDAA also builds on the reforms this Congress has passed in recent years. By continuing important efforts to reorganize the Department of Defense, spur innovation in defense technology, and improve defense acquisition and business operations, the NDAA seeks to strengthen accountability and streamline the process of getting our warfighters what they need to succeed. At the same time, it prioritizes accountability from the Department and demands the best use of every taxpayer dollar. The NDAA authorizes a pay raise for our troops. It improves military family readiness and supports the civilians and contractors who support our Armed Forces. It provides support for our allies and partners around the world who are dedicated to advancing the cause of freedom, deterring the aggression of our adversaries, and defeating the scourge of terrorism. This legislation recognizes the reality of the dangerous world our men and women in uniform face every day. As threats turn into crises around the world, we have asked these brave servicemembers to do more with less. That must end now. The NDAA takes important steps to deter Russian aggression, whether across its borderers or in cyber space. Russia continues to occupy Crimea, destabilize Ukraine, threaten our NATO allies, violate the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and bolster the Assad regime in Syria. In an unparalleled attack on our core interests and values, Russia engaged in an active, purposeful campaign to undermine the integrity of American democracy and affect the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election. The legislation authorizes nearly $5 billion for the European Deterrence Initiative to bolster U.S. capabilities in Europe and support our regional allies who feel the constant threat of revanchist Russian aggression. It also authorizes $500 million to provide security assistance to Ukraine, including the defensive lethal assistance the Ukrainians need to defend themselves. The legislation authorizes $65 million for research-and-development program on a ground-launched, intermediate-range missile in order to begin to close the capability gap opened by the Russian violation of the INF Treaty, without placing the United States in violation of the treaty. In supporting the fight against resurgent terrorism in the Middle East, the NDAA authorizes $1.8 billion in funding for counter-ISIS efforts via the Train and Equip Programs in Iraq and Syria. To support the continued mission in Afghanistan, the legislation authorizes $4.9 billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund. Importantly, the NDAA also authorizes 4,000 additional visas through the special immigration status under the Afghan Allies Protection Act. The legislation also authorizes $705 million for Israeli cooperative missile defense programs. The NDAA authorizes the Secretary of Defense to establish the Asia- Pacific Stability Initiative, a funding mechanism that has the potential to reshape the U.S. approach to this important region, reassure our allies and partners, and send a resounding message to our potential adversaries about the strength of our commitment. The legislation also authorizes $8.5 billion for the Missile Defense Agency to strengthen homeland, regional, and space- based missile defense systems. In particular, the legislation authorizes funding for up to 28 additional ground-based interceptors in Alaska, which could be a crucial part of our Nation's defense against a potential North Korea missile threat. The NDAA would allow our military to embark on an ambitious program of modernization, one that is desperately needed and long overdue. Across the services, this legislation provides funding above the administration's request to meet the list of unfunded priorities from the Department of Defense. Above and beyond the administration's request, the legislation funds 24 more Joint Strike Fighters, 10 more F/A-18 Super Hornets, and 5 additional ships for the Navy. The legislation also authorizes funding for an increase in end strength for the Army and the Marine Corps, adding 6,000 additional soldiers and 1,000 additional marines. At the same time, as part of rigorous congressional oversight of defense spending, this legislation demands accountability for results, promotes transparency, and protects taxpayer dollars. The legislation identifies targeted reductions to wasteful or underperforming programs, especially those that heavily rely upon software and information technology systems, and reinvests the savings in high-priority needs for the warfighters. The goal, as always, is to ensure our men and women in uniform receive the capabilities they need on time, on schedule, and at a reasonable cost. The NDAA makes important efforts to correct the glaring and dangerous lack of an effective strategy and policy for the information domain, including cyber, space, and electronic warfare. Without a sufficient response to previous congressional calls for a comprehensive strategy from the executive branch, the NDAA establishes a U.S. policy for cyber deterrence, cyber response, and cyber warfare. With respect to space, decisionmaking is currently fragmented across more than 60 offices in the Department of Defense--I repeat, 60 offices in the Department of Defense. Funding for space programs is also near 30-year lows, while the threats and our reliance on space are at their highest and growing. This legislation fully funds our space requirements and authorizes additional funding for the military's underfunded priorities for space. The NDAA also establishes a new DOD Chief Information Warfare Officer--a position that would streamline a current bureaucracy that is too often duplicative, inefficient, and ineffective, and instead assigns responsibility and accountability to one leader for all matters relating to the information environment-- including space, cyber security, electronic warfare, and the electromagnetic spectrum. Finally, the legislation takes several steps to bolster border security and homeland defense. It authorizes $791 million for the Department of Defense Counterdrug Programs. It would authorize and encourage the National Guard to enhance border security capabilities while gaining effective unit and individual training. It continues to support the United States-Israel anti-tunneling cooperation program, which helps to improve our efforts to restrict the flow of drugs across the U.S. southern border. This is an ambitious piece of legislation. It is one that reflects the growing threats to our Nation. Everything about the NDAA is threat- driven, including the $640 billion topline, which is based on an assessment of the strategic environment rather than an arbitrary adherence to budget agreements that have been overtaken by events. As we move forward with consideration of this legislation, 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. We ask a lot of our men and women in uniform, and they never let us down. We must not let them down. Their service represents the best of our country, and this Congress should always honor their sacrifice. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I was deeply saddened to hear about the passing of my friend and former colleague, Senator Pete Domenici, a great American who dedicated his life and career to public service. I had the great privilege of serving alongside Pete for many years and knew him as a gentleman who always behaved in the highest traditions of the Senate. Pete was a knowledgeable and pragmatic leader who knew how to reach across the aisle to advance bipartisan solutions to the Nation's biggest problems. Perhaps the best example of his skill for compromise was when he negotiated the Nation's last balanced budget in 1997. Pete represented the very best ideals of the U.S. Senate and left an indelible mark on this Chamber. Cindy and I extend our deepest condolences to Nancy and the entire Domenici family as they mourn the loss of a great man.