John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that LCDR Kevin M. Ferguson, a congressional defense fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the Senate's debate on H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mike Benitez, a defense fellow in the office of Senator Rounds, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the calendar year.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the nomination of Dr. Kevin Hassett to be Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Kevin is exceptionally qualified to be Chairman of the CEA, where he will play an integral role in tax reform and shaping this administration's progrowth economic policies. I have known Kevin for quite some--beginning when he served as the chief economic adviser to my Presidential campaign in 2000. The only time I have doubted his intellect was when he agreed to return to advise for my 2008 Presidential campaign. He has an extensive economic career spanning multiple administrations, including those of Presidents Clinton and George H.W. Bush. Currently, Kevin works at the American Enterprise Institute, AEI, as the State Farm James Q. Wilson Chair in American Politics and Culture and director of Research for Domestic Policy. Before joining AEI, Kevin served as a senior economist at the Federal Reserve and did a stint at Columbia Business School teaching economics and finance. To understand fully how smart he is, Kevin's former colleague told me the story of how he printed out a 400-plus page technical paper at the request of Kevin, only to realize he had printed out the original German version rather than an English translation. Without batting an eye, Kevin said ``no problem'' and went about reading the scholarly report in German. Kevin's nomination has received support from an ideologically diverse group of notable economists, including past CEA Chairmen. Additionally, the Senate Banking Committee approved his nomination by voice vote. I am pleased to support Kevin's nomination today. I wish him, his lovely wife, Kristie, and their sons, John and Jamie, all of the best in this new chapter of their lives.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Sarkis Tatigian, who will achieve the extraordinary milestone of 75 years of combined military and civilian service to the United States on September 26, 2017. Eligible for retirement since 1973, Mr. Tatigian has continued to honor America through his faithful service. Currently the associate director of the Small Business Programs Office at Naval Sea Systems Command, NAVSEA, Mr. Tatigian is a champion for our Navy, our small business community, and our country. Mr. Tatigian began his civilian career with the Navy in July 1942 as a junior radio inspector at the naval aircraft factory in the Philadelphia Navy Yard and the Navy Office of Inspector of Naval Aircraft in Linden, NJ. He left his position as an inspector in March 1943 and entered the uniformed Navy as an Active-Duty sailor in April 1943. In June 1944, as an aviation electronics technician's mate, he aided in the development of the Navy's first guided antiship munition, the ASM-N-2 ``BAT'' glide bomb, which later became an operational weapon in January 1945. In 1943, Mr. Tatigian began his Federal civil service with NAVSEA, where he still works today. Throughout his long career, he has received numerous awards, including the Navy's Superior Civilian Service Award in 2007. In recognition of his exceptional accomplishments in service, the Navy has even named an award after him, the Sarkis Tatigian Small Business Award, which recognizes outstanding performance through organizational culture and command climate. At 95 years young, Mr. Tatigian's dedication and resolve are inspirational. We can all learn a great deal about service to country and the American spirit from his great example. On behalf of a grateful nation, thank you, Mr. Sarkis Tatigian, for all you have done for our people, our government, and our Navy.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will address the Senate on the issue of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, our Nation commemorates the 16th anniversary of the terrorist attacks that took the lives of thousands of innocent Americans. We all join in solemn remembrance of the victims, and our hearts go out to their families. September 11 is a fitting day for the Senate to begin the consideration of the Defense authorization bill. The anniversary of those horrific terrorist attacks should serve as a reminder of the reason brave, young Americans are currently deployed around the world, fighting on behalf of freedom. I urge my colleagues to keep in mind the meaning of this day throughout the consideration of this important legislation, which will provide our men and women in uniform the resources, equipment, and support they need to keep our Nation safe. I would like to extend my appreciation to the majority leader for his willingness to move expeditiously to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 and for his leadership. I would also like to thank the Armed Services Committee ranking member, the Senator from Rhode Island, for his hard work on the NDAA. I remain appreciative of the thoughtfulness and bipartisan spirit with which he approaches national security issues. The fact is, the NDAA is a piece of legislation in which this body-- Members on both sides of the aisle--can and should take enormous pride. Not only does this legislation provide our men and women in uniform with the resources they need and deserve, but it is a product of an open and bipartisan process that represents the best of the U.S. Senate. The Senate Armed Services Committee passed the fiscal year 2018 NDAA unanimously by a vote of 27 to 0. I repeat. The Defense authorization bill was passed by a unanimous vote of 27 to 0. That means all 14 Republican members and the 13 Democratic members of the committee voted in favor of this legislation. During the markup, the committee considered and adopted 277 amendments that were offered by both Republicans and Democrats. Now we hope to consider the legislation under an open amendment process on the floor, which will allow all Senators to have their voices heard. This process, which is exactly how legislation is supposed to make its way through the Senate, has become disappointingly rare. For too long, partisanship and politics have triumphed over principle and policy. This legislation is an opportunity for us to reverse that trend and restore regular order in the U.S. Senate. The need for this legislation is self-apparent to anyone who is paying attention to today's world. With global terrorist networks, increasing great power competition with Russia and China, malign Iranian influence that is spreading across the Middle East, a North Korean dictator who is racing to acquire missiles that can hit the United States with nuclear weapons, the threats to our national security have not been more complex or daunting than at any time in the past seven decades. We must also remember that we are a nation at war, with brave young men and women who are deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world. The NDAA is legislation that will deliver to our Armed Forces the resources, equipment, and training they need to meet the increasingly complex challenges of today's world, and it will begin the process of rebuilding our military after years of devastating defense cuts. Let me point out what happens as a result of these mindless defense cuts, which every military leader has described as devastating to our ability to defend this Nation. Let me just remind you of the hard truth. The state of our military is eroding. We saw disturbing evidence of this reality over the summer as 42 servicemembers tragically perished in accidents during routine--I emphasize routine--training operations. On June 17, seven sailors were killed when the USS Fitzgerald collided with a containership 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 were 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 a 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 the same time, 44 servicemembers were killed in combat. The bottom line is, we are killing more of our own people in training than our enemies are in combat, and that did not happen by accident. It is a problem that is caused by this mindless sequestration and a lack, frankly, of appreciation by Members of this body and the other one of what the needs are of the men and women who are serving. It is about time that we started listening to our military leadership who are saying that if we do not change what we are doing in the next 5 years, our enemies--our adversaries--will catch up with us. This legislation 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 of the Department of Energy. The legislation also authorizes $60 billion for overseas contingency operations. In total, the NDAA supports a national defense topline of $700 billion. This funding is critical to begin addressing the readiness shortfall and modernization crisis caused by the self-inflicted wounds of the Budget Control Act, sequestration, and repeated continuing resolutions. We need look no further than recent headlines, as I mentioned, of fatal incidents during routine training operations for evidence of the deteriorated state of our military. These ship collisions and aviation accidents are taking the lives of our servicemembers at an alarming rate. In fact, in the last 3 years, we have killed four times as many of our own soldiers in peacetime training operations than our enemies have in combat. While there is plenty of responsibility to go around, we cannot ignore Congress's role. Years of budget cuts have forced our military to try to do too much with too little. Meanwhile, our adversaries are investing heavily in their own militaries, developing future warfare capabilities intended to erode our military advantage. Simply put, we cannot wait any longer to recapitalize our forces and restore our capabilities. Another important aspect of the NDAA is that it builds on the reforms this Congress has passed in recent years. By continuing important efforts to reorganize the Department of Defense, spur innovation and 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 will also improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform and those who support them. The legislation authorizes a 2.1-percent pay raise for our troops. It improves military family readiness and supports the civilians and contractors who work together with our Armed Forces to achieve the mission. Finally, the NDAA provides necessary assistance 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. These are the reasons why this legislation is more vital than ever. Congress's most important constitutional responsibility is providing for the common defense. Consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act each year is one of the ways that we live up to that duty. I guess we are going to have cloture on this bill. We don't need it. We shouldn't have to have it. We should move immediately to this legislation. Those who want to impose blockades to moving forward, to allowing other Members to have their amendments proposed and voted on, are doing the men and women who are serving our Nation a great disservice. The world is in more turmoil than it has been in 70 years. We cannot waste precious time and effort because one Senator has one amendment and he or she is then willing to block the whole process. Let's not do that this year. We can get around it. But what it does is deprive other Members of their ability to debate and have votes on their issues. So I hope my colleagues, once we vote for cloture, will agree to move forward with the bill. We can finish in the next couple of days, and we can give the American people and the men and women who defend this Nation a product we can be proud of. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, like all of us, I would like to join with our fellow citizens and colleagues in expressing our deep condolences to the victims of Hurricane Harvey. All Americans stand with the people of Texas who have been devastated by this terrible storm as they work to recover and rebuild their communities. My thoughts and prayers are also with the people of Florida as they prepare for Hurricane Irma. I urge everyone in the path of this horrible storm to pay attention to instructions from local officials to stay safe. In the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, I am pleased that the legislation before us includes $15 billion in emergency funding to help the people of Texas put their lives back together. Congress should and must provide this needed relief. In due time, if the devastation of Irma is anywhere near as bad as predicted, obviously I and others will support sending Federal funding to assist the people of Florida with recovery. That is clearly a requirement and function of government. Madam President, I also support increasing the debt ceiling as a necessary way to prevent default on our government debt. However, I cannot in good conscience support those very important pieces of this legislation if it also means supporting a continuing resolution. I have come to this floor many times to talk about the harmful effects of continuing resolutions on our military. Year after year, we have lurched from one short-term fix to another without doing the hard work of governing and budgeting. And year after year, I have reminded my colleagues that continuing resolutions are not only no way to fund the government, they inflict great harm upon those Americans we are constitutionally obliged to provide for, and that is our men and women in uniform. Our defense leaders have also sounded the alarm. For the last several years, our senior military and civilian leaders have come to the Senate Armed Services Committee and asked for the same thing: that Congress provide stable, predictable funding and that we provide it on time. Is that a lot to ask, stable and predictable funding, and providing it on time? In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee this year, Secretary Mattis pointed out that ``during nine of the past ten years, Congress has enacted 30 separate Continuing Resolutions to fund the Department of Defense, thus inhibiting our readiness and adaptation to new challenges.'' He asked Congress to ``pass a FY 2018 budget in a timely manner to avoid yet another harmful Continuing Resolution.'' Let me explain. A continuing resolution just continues and continues at previous years' levels. I will talk about some of the impacts continuing resolutions have had. The Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunford, also stated that ``without sustained, sufficient, and predictable funding, I assess that within 5 years we will lose our ability to project power; the basis of how we defend the homeland, advance U.S. interests, and meet our alliance commitments.'' My friends and colleagues, that doesn't come from Senator John McCain, it comes from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that without predictable funding, within 5 years, we will lose our ability to project power, the basis of how we defend the homeland, et cetera. I shouldn't have to remind everyone that threats are on the rise around the world. Global terrorist networks, increasing great power competition with Russia and China, malign Iranian influence spreading across the Middle East, a North Korean dictator racing to acquire missiles that can hit the United States with nuclear weapons--the threats to our national security have not been more complex or daunting than at any time in the past seven decades. Let us not forget that we are a nation at war. There are brave young men and women serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places. We must always ask ourselves, are we really doing all we can to support them? There is no point to discussing our strategy for Afghanistan or North Korea or ISIS or any of the other myriad of threats we are currently facing if we are simply going to fund the military through a continuing resolution. My friends, the state of our military is dire. The overwhelming majority of our forces are not fit for combat in the near term. Three out of our fifty-nine Army brigades are combat-ready. Four of sixty- four Air Force squadrons are ready to ``fight tonight''--that means fully combat ready. Fewer than half of the Marine and Navy planes are ready for combat. The Air Force has a pilot shortfall of 1,500, 1,000 of whom are fighter pilots. The Navy has a maintenance backlog of 5.4 million man-days scheduled for 2017. The hard truth is, our military is declining. The President of the United States campaigned with a full commitment of rebuilding our military. If we do a continuing resolution, we are not only not rebuilding our military, we are harming our military. The hard truth is, the military is declining. For evidence of this, we need look no further than all the headlines about ship collisions and aviation accidents during peacetime training operations--incidents that have tragically taken the lives of dozens of our brave men and women in uniform. The incident involving USS McCain, which killed 10 young sailors, is only the latest example. So how did we get here? How did we get into this position? Uncertain budgets that are consistently late. Continuing to increase the operational tempo for our military despite not having sufficient money to pay for it. Making cuts elsewhere to stay afloat, like training and maintenance. And we are about to do the same thing. Apparently, watching as young men and women die for entirely avoidable reasons seems not to be enough for us to change. To be sure, while the budget alone will not fix all of the underlying causes of the recent incidents, the military cannot improve without timely and growing budgets. Yet that is exactly what a CR--a continuing resolution--will not provide. A continuing resolution will lock the Department of Defense into last year's funding levels, it will prevent them from reprogramming funding to meet emerging needs, and it will prohibit the start of new programs to modernize for future threats. Perhaps worst of all, a continuing resolution will mandate a level of spending $52 billion less than the President's budget request. The military cannot fix its readiness problems without more funding. The military cannot grow its forces to meet the expanding requirements of a global threat environment under a continuing resolution. A continuing resolution will not allow our military to modernize its forces to ensure we maintain our strategic advantage over our competitors. While the President and this Congress understand that the military does have a need for additional funding to rebuild the military, we are asking them to keep treading water for 3 months for no reason whatsoever. A continuing resolution is a crutch we rely on when we cannot pass actual appropriations bills. It is a temporary solution to avoid the worst possible outcome--a Federal shutdown--and to allow us more time to reach a solution for funding the government. The majority of us can agree that passing continuing resolutions is not the proper way of funding government. Congress cannot perform oversight by passing continuing resolutions. The Federal Government cannot execute effectively or efficiently when locked into last year's funding bills. Having to pass a continuing resolution, by all accounts, is a failure by the Congress of the United States to fund the Federal Government. I understand the need to use these from time to time as bipartisan spending agreements are not always easy to come by. What I do not understand is why we are voting on a continuing resolution 3 weeks before the actual start of the next year without having spent any time in the Senate on actually trying to pass an appropriations bill or negotiating a bipartisan budget agreement. How is it that we are voting on a continuing resolution--a mechanism of last resort--before we have even made a single attempt at funding the government? There has been no discussion of a bipartisan budget deal. There has not even been a fiscal year 2018 budget resolution. We have not called up a single 2018 appropriations bill--not a single one for 2018. Quite simply, we have not been doing our jobs. If we are going to call ourselves the world's greatest deliberative body, we have to do one heck of a lot better. We have 3 weeks before we need to pass fiscal year 2018 funding. Why have we given up before having even tried? We could be spending this month debating a bipartisan budget deal we all know we will now need to pass in December. Attaching emergency funding for hurricane relief to a must-pass continuing resolution and debt limit increase is irresponsible and a dereliction of our most routine duties. It is the result of yet another self-inflicted--I repeat, self-inflicted--crisis. Instead of returning to the regular order by moving individual spending bills to fund our government and our national security priorities, with ample time for debate and amendments, we are shirking our responsibilities and kicking the can down the road. All of us are responsible for the detriment to the men and women serving in our military during a time of incredible global uncertainty. I would like to vote to provide assistance to the people of Texas. I cannot vote for another continuing resolution that will harm our men and women in uniform. Quite often, I go to where we have conflicts-- Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries in the region. I can tell you that these young men and women who are serving in uniform, under difficult and challenging circumstances, are not being provided with the support, the weapons, the strategy, or, most of all, the funding that is necessary. Yes, we have been in this conflict for many years. The main reason the conflict is not over is, we never had a strategy by which to win. Now we have a national security team that has a strategy to win, but they cannot do it without the tools they need to win but also do their best to protect the lives of these young men and women who are literally placing their lives on the line. Meanwhile, what do we do? We decide that by December 15, maybe we will take up a continuing resolution. We may take certain action. Meanwhile, we are not providing the men and women in the military with what they need not only to win but to do everything we can to ensure that we have provided them with every possible means of protecting their own health and welfare. I say to my colleagues, we have seen this movie before. We are lurching down the road to December 15--December 8, I think it has been changed to now--when everybody will be eager to get out of town and go home for one's undeserved Christmas holiday break. The point is, today we should be taking up the budget, taking up our appropriations bills, and moving forward. If people want to block it, fine. Then let's stay in tonight. Let's stay in on Friday and Saturday and Sunday. Let's do something really unusual. The men and women who are serving over there, whom we are supposed to be taking care of, do not leave on Thursday afternoon and go back on Monday. They are out there, putting themselves on the line for us every single hour of every single day, and they deserve a lot better than what they are getting from this administration and this Congress, where the Republican Party has the majority. I urge my colleagues again, Why don't we sit down? Why don't we move forward with these appropriations bills? Why don't we take care of the men and women who are serving? There are so many things we can do for them and for the country that we are not doing today. I urge my colleagues to sit down together, and let's move forward because the American people deserve it, and our oath of office makes it incumbent on us to practice it. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor a National Hockey League--NHL--legend, an Olympian, and a point of pride for Arizonans. After 21 seasons, 1,540 games, and 972 points scored, Shane Doan can now retire his skates with pride. A pillar in the Arizona community and a legend to hockey fans worldwide, Shane has left an indelible mark on the game, inspiring future generations of hockey players. Shane's career started in 1992 in the Western Hockey League's Kamloops Blazers--during which the team won back-to-back Memorial Cups. The 1995 Memorial Cup secured Shane the Stafford Smythe Memorial Trophy, honoring him as tournament's Most Valuable Player, MVP. Later that year, Shane was picked up by the NHL as a first-round draft pick with the Winnipeg Jets. Shane excelled with the team, who played him in the Stanley Cup, eventually naming him ``Rookie of the Year.'' Shane moved with his team to Phoenix, AZ, where he would remain until the end of his career, the 2016-17 season. Throughout his years as an Arizona Coyote, Shane accomplished many personal awards and franchise records, including selection for the 2006 Canadian Olympic Hockey Team, the King Clancy Trophy in 2009-10, the Mark Messer NHL Leadership Award in 2011-12, and selection for the NHL All-Star Team in 2003-04 and again in 2008-09. In December 2015, Shane secured the franchise record for career goals, at 379 goals, and again in February 2016 for franchise points, at 929 points. Upon his retirement, Shane was the longest serving active captain in the NHL, having lead the Coyotes for 14 years. As an avid sports fan, I am honored to have had Shane playing for the Arizona Coyotes for 20 years. I have been privileged to get to know Shane over the course of his career and can confidently say that he is a model of leadership and sportsmanship to those around him, both on and off the ice. I join with hockey fans in Arizona and across the world in congratulating Shane on his illustrious career and wish him, his wife, Andrea, and his kids Gracie, Josh, Karys, and Carson all the best as they enter this new chapter of life.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, while the Democratic leader is still on the floor, I just wanted to mention that I understand his concern about the healthcare issue and the amendments and the process for moving forward and the necessity for doing so. I made my views very clear; I won't repeat that eloquent speech I made. I would just like to say to my friend from New York that we do have a bill that passed through the committee 27 to 0--not a single person against it--after many days of debate, amendments, discussion, including a couple hundred amendments that were disposed of in the tradition of the Armed Services Committee. I believe it is in everybody's interest to go ahead and take up the Defense bill so that we can go to conference and resolve other issues, such as sequestration, et cetera. I understand the frustration my friend from New York feels, but where I have a disagreement with my friend from New York is saying that these two issues are inseparable. I believe that our obligation to the men and women in the military is transcendent. I understand the frustration of the Senator from New York. I was here when, with 60 votes, the bill was rammed through over Republican objections without a single amendment. I understand his frustration. What the majority leader and I are asking for is just that tomorrow we take up the NDAA bill. We can get it done in a few hours. We can send it to conference, take care of the equipment, training, all of the things the men and women who are serving in the military need. By the way, I understand the emotion on the other side. I felt the same emotion on this side some years ago, and I haven't forgotten it yet. So I would hope--and I know the Senator from New York has to discuss with his conference this issue of the Defense authorization bill. I would remind him and all of my colleagues that for 53 years now, we have passed and had the President of the United States sign the Defense authorization bill. That is a precedent that I really hope we do not break, because of our obligation to the men and women who are serving in the military. I know the Senator from New York feels exactly the same way. I am not impugning the integrity of the Senator from New York. I just ask that we consider it. I know the Senator from New York has to go back to his conference. I hope they all will consider it. Let me just finally say, I note, for example, the Senator from Virginia here on the floor, who has been a vital part of the--no, not the other one; not him. Both have been vital members of the Armed Services Committee. Yes, we have our disputes. Yes, we have our arguments. Yes, we are spirited. But we come out unanimously in favor of taking care of the men and women in the military. I hope the Senator from New York will consider this.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reclaiming my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I don't want to continue; our leader has important words to say. All I can say to the Senator from New York is, this is not the same. Defending the Nation is our first priority. That is what our Declaration of Independence says. That is the basis for all of our roles here. There are men and women who are in harm's way today, whose lives are in danger, who need this legislation in order to be better equipped and better able to defend themselves and this Nation. I am asking for a few hours because, as my two colleagues over there will state, we passed this bill 27 to 0 through the Armed Services Committee. We fight. We argue. We insult. But the fact is, we come out with a product that we are proud of, and then all of us have support. So all I am asking of the Senator from New York is if we could go off of this for a few hours, because we have basically an agreement on amendments, and get this thing to the President's desk so that he can protect and defend this Nation. That is all I am asking.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, very quickly, that is equating these two issues at the same level of concern. I would argue that defending this Nation and the men and women who are serving it is our first priority. I don't wish to debate the Senator from New York. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader for his courtesy, as always. In just the last 3 years, under Vladimir Putin, Russia has invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, threatened NATO allies, and intervened militarily in Syria, leaving a trail of death, destruction, and broken promises in his wake. Of course, last year Russia attacked the foundations of American democracy with a cyber and information campaign to interfere in America's 2016 election. I am proud--I am proud--of the two individuals who just spoke, the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Tennessee. Both of them have worked in a bipartisan fashion and got legislation to this floor. Although it is long overdue, it is here. I believe we will see an overwhelming vote, and I thank them for their bipartisanship. In the last 8 months, what price has Russia paid for attacking American democracy? Very little. This legislation would begin to change that. The legislation would impose mandatory sanctions on transactions with the Russian defense or intelligence sectors, including the FSB and the GRU, and the Russian military intelligence agency which was primarily responsible for Russia's attack on our election. I believe my colleagues know what is in this. It would codify existing sanctions on Russia by placing into law six Executive orders signed by President Obama in response to both Russian interference in the 2016 election and its illegal actions in Ukraine, and it would take new steps to tighten those sanctions. The legislation would target the Russian energy sector, which is controlled by Vladimir Putin's cronies, with sanctions on investment in Russian petroleum and natural gas development as well as Russian energy pipelines. My friends, the United States of America needs to send a strong message to Vladimir Putin and any other aggressor that we will not tolerate attacks on our democracy. That is what this bill is all about. We must take our own side in this fight, not as Republicans, not as Democrats but as Americans. It is time to respond to Russia's attack on American democracy with strength, with resolve, with common purpose, and with action. I am proud to have played a small role. What I am most proud of is the bipartisanship you are seeing manifested today on both sides of the aisle. We need a little more of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have stood in this place many times and addressed as ``President'' many Presiding Officers. I have been so addressed when I have sat in that chair, and that is as close as I will ever be to a Presidency. It is an honorific we are almost indifferent too; isn't it? In truth, presiding over the Senate can be a nuisance, a bit of a ceremonial bore, and it is usually relegated to the more junior Members of the majority. But as I stand here today--looking a little worse for wear, I am sure--I have a refreshed appreciation for the protocols and customs of this body and for the other 99 privileged souls who have been elected to this Senate. I have been a Member of the U.S. Senate for 30 years. I had another long, if not as long, career before I arrived here, another profession that was profoundly rewarding and in which I had experiences and friendships that I revere. Make no mistake, my service here is the most important job I have had in my life. I am so grateful to the people of Arizona for the privilege--for the honor--of serving here and the opportunities it gives me to play a small role in the history of the country I love. I have known and admired men and women in the Senate who played much more than a small role in our history--true statesmen, giants of American politics. They came from both parties and from various backgrounds. Their ambitions were frequently in conflict. They held different views on the issues of the day. They often had very serious disagreements about how best to serve the national interest. But they knew that however sharp and heartfelt their disputes and however keen their ambitions, they had an obligation to work collaboratively to ensure the Senate discharged its constitutional responsibilities effectively. Our responsibilities are important-- vitally important--to the continued success of our Republic. Our arcane rules and customs are deliberatively intended to require broad cooperation to function well at all. The most revered Members of this institution accepted the necessity of compromise in order to make incremental progress on solving America's problems and to defend her from her adversaries. That principled mindset and the service of our predecessors who possessed it come to mind when I hear the Senate referred to as the world's greatest deliberative body. I am not sure we can claim that distinction with a straight face today. I am sure it wasn't always deserved in previous eras either. I am sure there have been times when it was, and I was privileged to witness some of those occasions. Our deliberations today, not just our debates but the exercise of all our responsibilities--authorizing government policies, appropriating the funds to implement them, exercising our advice and consent role-- are often lively and interesting. They can be sincere and principled, but they are more partisan, more tribal more of the time than at any time I can remember. Our deliberations can still be important and useful, but I think we would all agree they haven't been overburdened by greatness lately. Right now, they aren't producing much for the American people. Both sides have let this happen. Let's leave the history of who shot first to the historians. I suspect they will find we all conspired in our decline, either by deliberate actions or neglect. We have all played some role in it. Certainly, I have. Sometimes, I have let my passion rule my reason. Sometimes I made it harder to find common ground because of something harsh I said to a colleague. Sometimes I wanted to win more for the sake of winning than to achieve a contested policy. Incremental progress, compromises that each side criticizes but also accepts, and just plain muddling through to chip away at problems and to keep our enemies from doing their worst aren't glamorous or exciting. It doesn't feel like a political triumph. It is usually the most we can expect from our system of government, operating in a country as diverse, quarrelsome, and free as ours. Considering the injustice and cruelties inflicted by autocratic governments and how corruptible human nature can be, the problem- solving our system does make possible, the fitful progress it produces, and the liberty and justice it preserves, are a magnificent achievement. Our system doesn't depend on our nobility. It accounts for our imperfections and gives an order to our individual strivings that has helped make ours the most powerful and prosperous society on Earth. It is our responsibility to preserve that, even when it requires us to do something less satisfying than winning, even when we must give a little to get a little, even when our efforts managed just 3 yards in a cloud of dust, while critics on both sides denounced us for timidity, for our failure to triumph. I hope we can again rely on humility, on our need to cooperate, on our dependence on each other to learn how to trust each other again and, by so doing, better serve the people who elected us. Stop listening to the bombastic loudmouths on the radio and television and the internet. To hell with them. They don't want anything done for the public good. Our incapacity is their livelihood. Let's trust each other. Let's return to regular order. We have been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle. That is an approach that has been employed by both sides: mandating legislation from the top down, without any support from the other side, with all the parliamentary maneuvers it requires. We are getting nothing done, my friends. We are getting nothing done. All we have really done this year is confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Our healthcare insurance system is a mess. We all know it, those who support ObamaCare and those who oppose it. Something has to be done. We Republicans have looked for a way to end it and replace it with something else without paying a terrible political price. We haven't found it yet. I am not sure we will. All we have managed to do is make more popular a policy that wasn't very popular when we started trying to get rid of it. I voted for the motion to proceed to allow debate to continue and amendments to be offered. I will not vote for this bill as it is today. It is a shell of a bill right now. We all know that. I have changes urged by my State's Governor that will have to be included to earn my support for final passage of any bill. I know many of you will have to see the bill changed substantially for you to support it. We have tried to do this by coming up with a proposal behind closed doors in consultation with the administration, then springing it on skeptical Members, trying to convince them it is better than nothing--that it is better than nothing--asking us to swallow our doubts and force it past a unified opposition. I don't think that is going to work in the end and probably shouldn't. The administration and congressional Democrats shouldn't have forced through Congress, without any opposition support, a social and economic change as massive as ObamaCare, and we shouldn't do the same with ours. Why don't we try the old way of legislating in the Senate--the way our rules and customs encourage us to act. If this process ends in failure, which seems likely, then let's return to regular order. Let the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, under Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray, hold hearings, try to report a bill out of committee with contributions from both sides--something that my dear friends on the other side of the aisle didn't allow to happen 9 years ago. Let's see if we can pass something that will be imperfect, full of compromises, and not very pleasing to implacable partisans on either side but that might provide workable solutions to problems Americans are struggling with today. What have we to lose by trying to work together to find those solutions? We are not getting much done apart. I don't think any of us feels very proud of our incapacity. Merely preventing your political opponents from doing what they want isn't the most inspiring work. There is greater satisfaction in respecting our differences but not letting them prevent agreements that don't require abandonment of core principles; agreements made in good faith, that help improve lives and protect the American people. The Senate is capable of that. We know that. We have seen it before. I have seen it happen many times. And the times when I was involved, even in a modest way with working on a bipartisan response to a national problem or threat, are the proudest moments of my career and by far the most satisfying. This place is important. The work we do is important. Our strange rules and seemingly eccentric practices that slow our proceedings and insist on our cooperation are important. Our Founders envisioned the Senate as the more deliberative, careful body that operates at a greater distance than the other body from the public passions of the hour. We are an important check on the powers of the Executive. Our consent is necessary for the President to appoint jurists and powerful government officials and, in many respects, to conduct foreign policy. Whether or not we are of the same party, we are not the President's subordinates, we are his equal. As his responsibilities are onerous, many, and powerful, so are ours. We play a vital role in shaping and directing the judiciary, the military, and the Cabinet; in planning and supporting foreign and domestic policies. Our success in meeting all these awesome constitutional obligations depends upon cooperation among ourselves. The success of the Senate is important to the continued success of America. This country--this big, boisterous, brawling, intemperate, restless, striving, daring, beautiful, bountiful, brave, good, and magnificent country--needs us to help it thrive. That responsibility is more important than any of our personal interests or political affiliations. We are the servants of a great nation, ``a . . . nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.'' More people have lived free and prosperous lives here than in any other Nation. We have acquired unprecedented wealth and power because of our governing principles, and because our government defended those principles. America has made a greater contribution than any other nation to an international order that has liberated more people from tyranny and poverty than ever before in history. We have been the greatest example, the greatest supporter, and the greatest defender of that order. We aren't afraid. We don't covet other people's land and wealth. We don't hide behind walls. We breach them. We are a blessing to humanity. What greater cause could we hope to serve than helping keep America the strong, aspiring, inspirational beacon of liberty and defender of dignity of all human beings and their right to freedom and equal justice? That is the cause that binds us and is so much more powerful and worthy than the small differences that divide us. What a great honor and extraordinary opportunity it is to serve in this body. It is a privilege to serve with all of you. I mean it. Many of you have reached out in the last few days with your concern and your prayers. It means a lot to me. It really does. I have had so many people say such nice things about me recently that I think some of you must have me confused with someone else. I appreciate it, though, every word, even if much of it isn't deserved. I will be here for a few days--I hope managing the floor debate on the Defense authorization bill, which I am proud to say is again a product of bipartisan cooperation and trust among the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. After that, I am going home for a while to treat my illness. I have every intention of returning here and giving many of you cause to regret all the nice things you said about me, and I hope to impress on you again that it is an honor to serve the American people in your company. Thank you, fellow Senators. Mr. President, I yield the floor. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me begin by reviewing the threats the United States is facing around the world today. The campaign against ISIS is far from over. We must build on the success of retaking Mosul and ensure an enduring defeat of terrorist threats in Iraq and Syria and throughout the region. 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. China continues to militarize the South China Sea and modernize its own military at an alarming rate. North Korea gets ever closer to developing the capability to strike the U.S. homeland with a nuclear- armed missile. I could spend a lot of time going through all of the threats we face. We are at war. We are at war. There are brave young men and women serving in Afghanistan, as I speak. Some of them have been wounded and killed. We must always ask ourselves: Are we really doing all we can to support them? Our military is facing a crisis. Years of budget cuts from this Congress have failed our men and women in uniform. In order to rebuild the military, the Pentagon needs to ramp up readiness programs and embark on an ambitious plan for modernization to make sure our servicemembers are given the training, resources, and capabilities they need. To do that, the Department of Defense must have senior leadership. The position of Deputy Secretary of State is one of the most critical positions in our government. It is essentially the chief operating officer of the largest, most complex organization in the world--the Department that is entrusted with ensuring our national security. Patrick Shanahan is a well-qualified nominee who passed out of the Armed Services Committee on a voice vote. This body voted overwhelmingly, 98 to 1, to confirm General Mattis as Secretary of Defense. He had our overwhelming support to lead the Department during challenging times. Yet we have not given Secretary Mattis the senior leadership he needs to help him do his job. Tomorrow, I say to my colleagues, the current Deputy Secretary of Defense, Bob Work, will leave his office. There simply is no more time to delay moving the nomination of Patrick Shanahan. You can choose to vote no, you can choose to vote yes, but let's just vote. The obstruction has gone on long enough, and it has to stop. I wish to say, I understand the frustration my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel with the process we have been through, particularly on the issue of healthcare. The issue of healthcare should have gone through the relevant committees. It should have had amendments, it should have had debate, it should have had discussion, and maybe we could have passed something going through the regular order, and we didn't. I understand the frustration my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are feeling. I felt the same thing in 2009 when we did ObamaCare, basically on the same basis. Yet amnesia seems to have set in here or new Members are not remembering or care. What is going on in this body, unfortunately, these days is plagued by partisanship and politics. This is a time to put aside all of that for the sake of our national security and come together as Republicans and Democrats to move this nomination. Our men and women in uniform deserve no less. Let me say again to my friend from New York, whom I have enjoyed doing battle with for many years, he is a man of honesty and integrity and a man of his word. I understand his frustration, and I understand the frustration on the other side of the aisle because we felt the same thing. I would again ask the indulgence of the leader of the Democrat Party on the other side to at least consider this unanimous consent request. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Executive Calendar No. 157, the nomination of Patrick Shanahan to be Deputy Secretary of Defense; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. McCAIN. Before the Democratic leader leaves, may I ask one more? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5 p.m. on Monday, July 17, the Senate proceed to executive session for consideration of Executive Calendar No. 157. I further ask that there be 30 minutes of debate on the nomination equally divided in the usual form and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate, and that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action. Before I ask for a ruling on that, may I just say that the Senator from New York has a legitimate comment. Why in the world we would be wasting time on the Ambassador to Japan when we have the Department of Defense nominees in line is something I can neither account for, nor can I condone. So I understand the frustration of the Senator from New York. Maybe sometime after our 2 weeks in August, perhaps some of us ought to sit down and talk and work out an agenda. We have a train wreck coming, as the Senator from New York knows. We have the debt limit. We have appropriations bills to pass. We have all these things piling up, we have about 30 days to do it in, and so far, I have seen no plan to address these challenges. The only way we are going to address some of these challenges, I say to my colleagues, with their partisanship and anger and dislike of anybody who lives over there, the fact is that we need to work together to work these things out, and we can do it without betraying principle, but we can also do it by understanding the priorities and the dedication and patriotism of those on the other side of the aisle. So I understand the Senator from New York. I don't agree with the Senator from New York, but I understand his frustration. So I renew my consent request.

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask one more question of the Democratic leader? When would Mr. Shanahan's nomination be in order?

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Open America's Waters Act of 2017. This bill would repeal the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, better known as the Jones Act, an archaic and burdensome law that hinders free trade, stifles the economy and ultimately hurts consumers, largely for the benefit of labor unions. If this legislation becomes law, U.S. shippers will no longer be required to patronize market inefficiency but rather, effectively leverage the global shipping market. As many of my colleagues know, the Jones Act is one of many of laws passed over time that addresses port-to-port coastal shipping, drafted in order to protect the U.S. domestic shipping industry. While the Jones Act may have had some rationale back in the 1920s when it was enacted, today it serves only to raise shipping costs, making U.S. farmers and businesses less competitive in the global marketplace and increasing costs for American consumers. This protectionist mentality directly contradicts the lessons our nation has learned about the many benefits of a free and open market. Repeatedly, it has been proven that trade liberalization has created jobs, expanded economic growth and provided consumers with access to lower cost goods and services. The forced purchase of American vessels combined with the immense cost associated with U.S. shipbuilding has forced U.S. shippers to act against their best interests to the detriment of their businesses. While foreign-built coastal-sized ships typically cost between $25-30 million, a U.S.-made ship of the same size can cost anywhere between $190-250 million. A repeal of the Jones Act, over time, would have broad impact. According to a 2002 U.S. International Trade Commission study, repealing the Jones Act would lower shipping costs by about 22 percent. The Commission also found that repealing the Jones Act would have an annual positive effect of $656 million on the overall U.S. economy. Though this decade-and-a-half-old study provides some of the most recent statistics available, it is not hard to imagine the modern affect that maritime deregulation would contribute to this industry. Congress must take action to repeal laws that have outlived their usefulness and are no longer relevant to modern commerce. It is unacceptable that millions of dollars in the U.S. economy are lost every year to an antiquated policy, and unacceptable that this body is unable to disengage from special interests in order to participate in a productive debate on this issue. I encourage my colleagues to reflect on our responsibility as lawmakers and see the Jones Act for what it really is: an outdated and protectionist policy that only serves to harm the American economy and consumer. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Open America's Waters Act of 2017. This bill would repeal the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, better known as the Jones Act, an archaic and burdensome law that hinders free trade, stifles the economy and ultimately hurts consumers, largely for the benefit of labor unions. If this legislation becomes law, U.S. shippers will no longer be required to patronize market inefficiency but rather, effectively leverage the global shipping market. As many of my colleagues know, the Jones Act is one of many of laws passed over time that addresses port-to-port coastal shipping, drafted in order to protect the U.S. domestic shipping industry. While the Jones Act may have had some rationale back in the 1920s when it was enacted, today it serves only to raise shipping costs, making U.S. farmers and businesses less competitive in the global marketplace and increasing costs for American consumers. This protectionist mentality directly contradicts the lessons our nation has learned about the many benefits of a free and open market. Repeatedly, it has been proven that trade liberalization has created jobs, expanded economic growth and provided consumers with access to lower cost goods and services. The forced purchase of American vessels combined with the immense cost associated with U.S. shipbuilding has forced U.S. shippers to act against their best interests to the detriment of their businesses. While foreign-built coastal-sized ships typically cost between $25-30 million, a U.S.-made ship of the same size can cost anywhere between $190-250 million. A repeal of the Jones Act, over time, would have broad impact. According to a 2002 U.S. International Trade Commission study, repealing the Jones Act would lower shipping costs by about 22 percent. The Commission also found that repealing the Jones Act would have an annual positive effect of $656 million on the overall U.S. economy. Though this decade-and-a-half-old study provides some of the most recent statistics available, it is not hard to imagine the modern affect that maritime deregulation would contribute to this industry. Congress must take action to repeal laws that have outlived their usefulness and are no longer relevant to modern commerce. It is unacceptable that millions of dollars in the U.S. economy are lost every year to an antiquated policy, and unacceptable that this body is unable to disengage from special interests in order to participate in a productive debate on this issue. I encourage my colleagues to reflect on our responsibility as lawmakers and see the Jones Act for what it really is: an outdated and protectionist policy that only serves to harm the American economy and consumer. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.