Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next amendment in order be the Marshall amendment No. 3213, and I further ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold in relation to that amendment.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next amendment in order be the Cotton-Gillibrand amendment, No. 3759, and I further ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold in relation to that amendment.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next amendment in order be the Curtis amendment No. 3697.

Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, this is an excellent amendment. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold in relation to the Cruz amendment.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, briefly, a number of Members are at their desks and will vote from their desks. I am told that the majority leader means it when he says we are going to have 10-minute votes. I would urge my colleagues, we can have a speedy disposition of all of these important amendments or we can go into the wee hours. I urge my Members to consider their votes. Vote on Amendment No. 3761

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the two leaders to enter motions to reconsider without being on the prevailing side with respect to the cloture votes on the motion to proceed to S. 2882 and H.R. 5371.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, and notwithstanding rule XXII, it be in order to call up the following amendments to Calendar No. 115, S. 2296: Paul, No. 3761; Cruz, No. 3274; Scott of Florida, No. 3535; Marshall, No. 3213; Moran, No. 3814; Curtis, No. 3697; Lee-Duckworth, No. 3288; Cotton-Gillibrand, No. 3759; Cornyn-Cortez Masto, No. 3926; Hagerty- Peters, No. 3841; Schumer, No. 3109; Van Hollen, No. 3872; Duckworth, No. 3210; Warnock, No. 3010; Kaine, No. 3337; Sanders, No. 3853; and Merkley, No. 3927; further, that with respect to the amendments listed above, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate vote on the amendments in the order listed, with no further amendments or motions in order and with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption and that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote; further, that upon disposition of the Merkley amendment, No. 3927, the following amendments be called up and made pending en bloc and that they be the only remaining amendments in order to S. 2296: Scott of South Carolina, No. 3340; Hassan, No. 2928; Grassley, No. 3355; Warnock, No. 2952; McCormick, No. 3376; Ossoff, No. 2971; Cornyn, No. 3405; Kaine, No. 3039; Capito, No. 3435; Gallego, No. 3136; Lankford, No. 3439; Duckworth, No. 3156; Blackburn, No. 3489; Shaheen, No. 3351; Kennedy, No. 3703; Booker, No. 3530; Daines, No. 3732; Slotkin, No. 3557; Ricketts, No. 3788; Peters, No. 3570; Hawley, No. 3799; Hickenlooper, No. 3601; Rounds, No. 3810; Coons, 3712; Tillis, No. 3811; Cortez Masto, No. 3724; Moran, No. 3813; Klobuchar, No. 3751; Grassley, No. 3823; Klobuchar, No. 3818; Kennedy, No. 3702; Durbin, No. 3825; Fischer, No. 3842; Padilla, No. 3834, Cruz, No. 3890; Hirono, No. 2979; Grassley-Durbin, No. 3272; Cruz-Cantwell, No. 3742; Scott of South Carolina-Warren, No. 3901, Risch-Shaheen, No. 3819; Graham, No. 3899; Sullivan-Whitehouse, No. 3888; Collins, No. 3880, Hirono, No. 3015; Peters, No. 3753; Shaheen-Risch, No. 3826; Coons, No. 3728; Gallego, No. 3928; that the Senate vote on the amendments en bloc; that upon disposition of the amendments, the pending Thune amendments and motions be withdrawn, the Ernst amendment No. 3427 be agreed to, and the Wicker-Reed substitute amendment No. 3748, as modified, and as amended, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and that the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage; and that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, we are in an unfortunate period of hyperpartisanship that doesn't look good from this angle, and I know it doesn't look good to the general public. But I have some good, bipartisan news that might make us feel better about our national security. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I come to the floor this morning and say that we are finally in a position to take up on the floor and vote on and pass the National Defense Authorization Act. This is a very important act that we have managed, in times of majority and minority in Democratic and Republican administrations, to pass each year for over six decades. My partner and colleague, the former chairman of the committee, Jack Reed, and now ranking Democrat member, has worked with me, along with our Armed Services Committee members and our capable staffs, and we have built a strong, bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act. It started this summer, when, earlier than usual, the committee approved our bill by an overwhelming majority of 26 to 1. Let me say that again. In this time when we can't seem to muster a 60-vote majority to keep us in business as a Federal Government, we were able to pass the National Defense Authorization Act by a vote of 26 to 1. It is member-driven, and it is full of national security priorities from Senators across this body on both sides of the aisle. It is designed to make important changes to make our country stronger, to make our defenses better and more able to defend ourselves and, therefore, to prevent armed conflict. Senator Reed and I have worked with majority and minority Members to build a bipartisan package of 49 amendments to be offered on the floor, and we are within moments of a decision point. We can decide to bring this matter to the floor and get unanimous consent to lock in consideration or we can begin voting, which will take us into the afternoon. I have to say that based on experience, if we don't get this locked in at this moment, then we will miss an opportunity to consider these amendments on the floor because we simply are going to run out of time if we don't proceed before the weekend break. The package was included in the substitute amendment, which we filed back before the August break. Since that time, we worked closely to take the next step. We have 47 amendments for a second managers' package, and this has been agreed upon by the ranking member and by me and by our membership, split evenly between Republicans and Democrats. It contains numerous bipartisan items. We might not take all 17 votes, but we have teed up 17 votes--again, split evenly or split as evenly as possible between Republican bills and Democrat bills. I say to you, Mr. President, and I say to the leadership of the Democratic minority in this Senate, we are ready to vote on the NDAA. We are ready to show on both sides of the aisle that the Senate can act in the interest of national security and get something done on a bipartisan basis. For heaven's sake, we need to do that at this moment, even more importantly than at other times. We have a great product before us. It makes huge changes--significant changes--and we need to send the signal that we can do this, get it then coordinated with the House version, which has already been passed, and move it to the President of the United States for his early signature. I, genuinely, thank my partner, Senator Jack Reed, for his tireless work with me to get to this point. I was looking forward to locking in a unanimous consent request at this moment, but I have been told to hold off. It could be coming in just a few minutes. But we have to get that unanimous consent to avoid vote after vote after vote on cloture on these various proposals and amendments. We have to lock that in. We must do it this morning--in the next hour perhaps--between now and the first vote, which I believe begins in about 30 minutes. We simply cannot delay this process any longer. Let me make it clear: If we do not bring this to the floor today, this matter will not have time for deliberation on the Senate floor, and we will have to basically pretend that we are having a conference between House and Senate Members, and a very small group of Senators will have to write this bill and bring it to the floor for final passage. That is not the way this ought to be done, and it can be avoided with a unanimous consent request in just a very few minutes. The good news is, we are ready to proceed. The good news is, the committee is united, 26 to 1, and my ranking member and I are ready to proceed. We simply need a Democratic leader to come down here and agree to unanimous consent. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, every time my Democratic friends want to advocate for another expensive program, they mention the tax cuts. Let me just stray from the issue at hand to say, as I have always said, when Republicans cut taxes on job creators, on small business people, on 95 percent of the people who file a tax return back in 2017, jobs were created. And until the pandemic was visited upon the whole world, jobs were created and revenue rose for the United States of America. I have to say that. Let me also say this: There have been times, very recently, when the Democratic party controlled the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. And even in those situations-- those recent situations--this legislation costing in excess of $9 billion in mandatory spending was not brought forward. Now, why would our friends across the aisle and the President of the United States, who was a Democrat, not advocate for that and make sure it comes to a vote is that you have got to make choices when it comes to national defense. Where would we take the money, the $9 billion? Are we going to take it out of salary increases for our junior enlisted people, which is in this bill? Are we going to take it out of munitions? Are we going to take it out of modernization of our nuclear strategic system, which is behind and needs it so desperately? We can't just print up another $9 billion or $10 billion for this purpose, particularly when there is the question that has not been answered about double compensation here. And so I would just say it is easy to point fingers at this side of the aisle on this occasion and on this unanimous consent request, but there is a reason that there has been a bipartisan reluctance to spend this extra money, which we would love to have if we had it, if we could just wave a magic wand and create the money out of thin air, but we cannot do it. The responsible thing, regardless of who has been in charge of this Chamber, has been to do the best we can for our veterans with one or the other of these compensation programs. And so for that reason, I do object.

Mr. WICKER. Reserving the right to object, let me say that I have deep respect for my colleague and friend, the senior Senator from Connecticut. He is a veteran; I am a veteran. I have no doubt in my mind that Senator Blumenthal has a heart for the veterans and for disabled veterans, and I appreciate that. He is moved with concern for those who have served and who have been injured. However, my colleague is asking for an entitlement that does amount to a double benefit and that we cannot afford. We are talking about between $9 billion and $10 billion on the Department of Defense authorization act. And we are talking about adding a bill, a piece of legislation, that really belongs in another jurisdiction, as my friend acknowledged. We cannot possibly add another $10 billion--$9 or $10 billion of entitlement money--to this DOD authorization act and hope to pass it. And that is the reason that in Democrat majorities and Republican majorities--House Democrat majorities and Senate Democrat majorities-- and in Democratic administrations, this legislation has never been accepted--because we simply cannot afford it. Historically, Congress has provided permanent new benefits only after we have identified an offset, savings of a similar amount. There is no such offset identified in this unanimous consent request. And when we do not identify offsets, then that $10 billion--almost $10 billion--has to come out of readiness, out of the strength of our military to defend ourselves in the most dangerous time we have had since World War II. So I have the deepest respect for my friend from Connecticut, and I admire his intentions. But until Congress and until the authors of this proposal identify a way to offset the expense or to make it less expensive, we should not move forward with this legislation. Therefore, I do object.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I expect the distinguished minority leader, my friend from New York, will speak possibly after the first vote and report that we are still at an impasse on funding the government, which, of course, expires at midnight tomorrow night. At that point, I want to implore my colleagues on this side of the aisle, and particularly the Democratic leader, to agree that while we are at an impasse, there is still very, very important business to attend to, and that is the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, which, as the President knows, has been reported from the Senate Armed Services Committee, some months ago, by an overwhelming majority vote, with only one dissenting vote. I think it was a vote of 24 to 1. That bill was reported to the floor. Our side of the cloakroom has run several hotlines, and we have been ready to go now for several days. Our disappointment has been that while the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee has been willing to proceed and a number of our friends on both sides of the dais, Republicans and Democrats, on the Armed Services Committee have been willing to proceed, we don't have engagement yet from the minority leadership. So I simply want to express aloud what I hope I can engage the Senator from New York about when he does speak. While we are at an impasse and the Senate is still in session, it seems to me a reasonable thing to do to bring this bipartisan, noncontroversial, but highly significant bill to the floor. We have agreed to a managers' package on our side. We actually have 985 Member-driven items already in the National Defense Authorization Act. We have agreed to a number of amendments and a second managers' package. There is very little difference on what will be brought to the Senate for votes, and it just seems to me that we don't need to sit around idly while negotiations perhaps are going on with the White House, with the House, and the Senate. We need to proceed to this very essential legislation--the national defense bill. If we could get that done this week, I think it would show to our constituents back home in both parties--Independent, Republican, and Democrat--that we are serious about the business of protecting the United States, enacting this very important legislation and the changes we need so that we are not doing last decade's type of national defense but doing our job under the Constitution to make sure the United States is strong. So I would make that request to my Democratic friends and to my Republican friends, most of whom, on our side, are ready to proceed and have been ready to proceed on the National Defense Authorization Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, on behalf of leadership, I ask unanimous consent 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. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, this August, Mississippi marked the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, one of the most devastating natural disasters in our Nation's history. The Mississippi coast faced the brunt of the storm, but every county in the State felt the wrath of Katrina. Thousands of homes were leveled. Bridges and roads were demolished, severing the routes that connected our cities and towns. Most tragically, 238 Mississippians lost their lives. The State needed strong and steady leadership, and I am grateful that Governor Haley Barbour rose to the occasion. Governor Barbour, along with his wife First Lady Marsha Barbour spearheaded recovery efforts, insisting that Mississippi would not only rebuild but would come back stronger than before. He formed the Governor's Commission on Recovery, Rebuilding, and Renewal, which ensured that response efforts were not reactive but instead followed a proactive strategy. He secured significant Federal relief funds and maintained relationships with officials at all levels of government. That local, State, and Federal coordination continues to benefit Mississippi. Governor Barbour helped transform the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina into an opportunity. The storm will always remain in our memory, but we have worked hard to turn its impact into a relic of the past. Governor Barbour has been integral to that progress. Today, the Mississippi Coast is even more of a bustling hub of commerce, innovation, and tourism. In the 20 years since Hurricane Katrina, families and companies have made it their home, private investment has flourished, and Amtrak passenger rail has returned, bringing visitors and business to our shoreline. Today, Mississippians are looking to the future of the gulf coast and our entire State. As we do, we commend Governor Barbour's remarkable service in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled rollcall vote: Wicker for up to 10 minutes, Reed for up to 15 minutes, Cotton for up to 5 minutes, and Tuberville for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, now let me say that I come to the floor today to join with President Trump and with a bipartisan majority of my colleagues in the Senate in calling for another tougher round of sanctions against Russia and its war machine. For the past 8 months, President Trump and President Zelenskyy have extended the hand of peace. Ukraine is committed to a cease-fire. President Trump has sat down personally with Vladimir Putin on U.S. soil. In response, President Putin has mocked the peace process by repeatedly escalating his attacks on the free people of Ukraine, and he is doing so even as we speak. Over the weekend, Russia launched its largest aerial attack of the war. Putin rained over 800 Iranian-designed drones and missiles down on cities across Ukraine, including the capital Kyiv. For the first time, Russia damaged Ukraine's main government building, where the Cabinet of Ministers meets. The burning building symbolizes Putin's ultimate prize: His dictatorship seeks to take down Ukraine's democratically elected government. On Sunday, President Trump said he is ready to increase the economic pressure against Russia. I agree. So does commentator Mark Levin, an experienced political writer and analyst and a prominent advocate for President Trump and his agenda. After the attack, Mr. Levin put it well when he said: It's time to unleash an economic barrage against Putin and sell NATO what Ukraine needs to slam back. I say: Amen. Do not tolerate Putin's lies and games any longer. President Trump has given Vladimir Putin every chance to show who he is, and time and again, Putin has shown himself to be a war criminal. Economic and military punishment is all Putin understands, and it is all he deserves. Here is a brief refresher. In February, Vladimir Putin marked the third anniversary of his invasion by launching what was then the largest drone strike of the war. The next month, Ukraine agreed to a cease-fire even though Ukraine is the one being invaded. The episode previewed a pattern that has continued ever since: Ukraine shows its intention for peace and security, and Putin always escalates his unprovoked attacks. In March, Russia launched drones and ballistic missiles into a residential neighborhood in President Zelenskyy's hometown. Putin fired cluster munitions into the city, sending shrapnel--where did he send it? Into restaurants, homes, a children's playground. He killed 9 children in that strike. Once again, the world saw Vladimir Putin escalate, targeting a nonmilitary town because that is where President Zelenskyy is from--the actions of a war criminal who should be in prison. In the following months of this year, Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy remained committed to peace. But then, in May, Putin launched 273 drones against Ukraine. It was a new record, but he broke that evil benchmark a few days later in the largest combined drone and missile attack of the war so far. He launched 367 aerial weapons against Ukraine. Once again, the world saw Putin escalate, proving to be a war criminal. Amid the brutality, Vladimir Putin has played games with peace talks. We have all seen it. With one hand, he signals interest in negotiations; with another, he lobs bombs and kills civilians. In early July of this year, he once again upped the ante. He sent 728 drones and 13 missiles to Ukraine, making clear his evil intention. Once again, the world saw Putin escalate, proving to be, again, a war criminal. At this point, I need to mention that those attacks are making little progress for the invading Russians. That is a strong testament to the will and resolve of the Ukrainian people and military, who are simply defending their own country, their own soil, and doing so admirably. In the aftermath of this attack in July, President Trump made the correct assessment that Vladimir Putin ``talks nice [and] then he bombs everybody.'' Those are President Trump's words, and I congratulate him on that observation. The barrage prompted President Trump to work with NATO to supply Ukraine with more arms. He also gave Russia a deadline to pursue peace. Just this weekend, the world saw the war criminal escalate again. He dropped more than 800 Russian drones onto civilians, neighborhoods, and government buildings. Vladimir Putin sent an unambiguous message: He is not interested in peace; he is interested in conquering Ukraine. And he won't stop there. As if this weekend's attacks were not a clear enough sign of his intentions, Putin continued his brutality just this morning--just this morning, Mr. President. He launched a glide missile into a village, killing at least 24 Ukrainians who had lined up to receive their pension payments. Nearly two dozen more were wounded, and the statistics are still coming in. Just last week, Russia struck another hospital--this time in Donetsk--killing two people and damaging medical facilities. I could go on with more examples, but it is worth stopping here to again make two points that former Secretary Mike Pompeo made in an interview just this morning with Brian Kilmeade on FOX News. The first is that there is very little military objective to strikes like these. Twenty-four innocents killed is a tragedy, but it is not a resounding military success. That is because Putin is not and cannot make very many resounding military successes. The second is that Putin clearly has no intention to stop. This morning, former Secretary Pompeo, a distinguished former member of President Trump's Cabinet, said: Vladimir Putin has zero interest in any negotiated solution. Zero interest. He is going to stay at this until there is an enormous cost imposed on him. I think that is what the President of the United States was saying just a day or so ago. In other words, there is no reason to believe that Putin wants anything less than to take the country of Ukraine successfully, and he will not stop until he is forced to stop. The Kremlin is projecting confidence at home, but that confidence is a sham. This morning, a Moscow newspaper was honest enough to say: The Kremlin believes Russia is slowly but surely achieving its goals in Ukraine. I disagree with that, by the way. To continue the quote: So Moscow doesn't intend-- Doesn't intend-- to stop or feel any desire for half-hearted solutions & half- baked compromises. Could there be any doubt that this is a true statement? They have a fake confidence, but they have no intention of stopping. Mr. Putin is regularly shutting down internet access for Russian citizens so they won't know what is going on in the war, so they won't know how slowly they are moving, allowing only approved sites that do not allow the truth to come through. This is Russian totalitarianism at its best--or worst. Putin hopes to project enough confidence at home to sustain the war effort and wear Ukraine down. Abroad, he hopes to wait out the West with fake peace talks while he continues pummeling Ukraine with missiles and drones of death. Where does Putin's rain of fire come from? It comes from Russia's war machine, which produces what seems to be an endless supply of deadly drones. But it does not have to be endless. Today, Russia barely has the economic capacity to continue bombarding Ukraine--barely. But now at last, President Trump has indicated he is willing to cut off that capacity. Again, I say: Amen. We must be willing to cut it off. Again, a majority--a huge bipartisan majority--of Senators have said this. Russia's friends are only encouraging his villainy. China is buying and selling with Russia, enabling its war machine. North Korea sent its own troops to assist Russia's soldiers on the battlefield. Iran designs and supplies weapons. That is a troubling axis of aggressors. In the face of such malicious collaboration, we must use every available tool to increase pressure on Putin's war machine. Extending the hand of peace has not worked with this dictator because this dictator is not interested in peace. He will respond only to strength. He will act only if his war machine begins running out of funds, and we can help accomplish that. The U.S. Senate has shown broad support for increasing Russian sanctions. Eighty-four Senators have signed on to a tough sanctions bill that can help us bankrupt Putin's war machine. I am ready to work with my colleagues and the President to put real cost on Putin for these war crimes. I congratulate the President of the United States for his strong statement this weekend. As Mark Levin said, let us ``unleash an economic barrage against Putin.'' Well said. Let's do it today. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3427 to Senate amendment No. 3748, as modified, and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I call up the Wicker-Reed substitute amendment No. 3748, as modified, and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 4 p.m. today.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, the Senate is about to take up this year's National Defense Authorization Act. My colleagues and I on the Senate Armed Services Committee have worked hard to bring this bill to the floor for consideration by all of our fellow Senators, and we bring it to our colleagues with a resounding committee action. In our committee markup, we voted in a landslide--26 yeses and only 1 nay--to advance the bill--a nearly unanimous endorsement of this legislation. My colleagues and I have spent the past 7 months listening to the Nation's top military officials. These officials from command stations all over the world have detailed the dangerous threat environment facing the United States. This NDAA is a direct response to their testimony. In our overwhelmingly positive committee vote, we send a clear message: We agree with the testimony of our military officials. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that we are not where we need to be on national defense. This bill helps close that gap. The committee's fiscal year 2026 NDAA is focused on two things: rebuild and reform. Again, by a vote of 26 to 1, we adopted a bill with a $924.7 billion top line--an increase that recognizes the urgent need to rebuild our military. We also adopted numerous reforms to the Pentagon's antiquated business processes captured in my FoRGED Act--the most significant acquisition reform proposal in decades. This NDAA will help rebuild the U.S. military so that our servicemembers are better equipped for the threats of the 21st century. This bill makes investments in cutting-edge technology, such as artificial intelligence, cyber defenses, drone production, and the means to defend ourselves against drones. We authorized a 3.8-percent pay raise for servicemembers, and we expanded programs to continue President Trump's successful military recruitment surge. This NDAA supports the DOD's role in border security and rolls back statutory requirements for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs at the Pentagon. Throughout, we sought to give the President the tools needed to keep the homeland safe. This NDAA helps equip the United States to counter the Chinese Communist Party. The committee included authorizations to replenish munitions used earlier this year against Iran, to accelerate shipbuilding, and to support the Golden Dome initiative and many other important initiatives. This National Defense Authorization Act would bring the Pentagon's acquisition process into the modern day. As one example, in just a single provision of this bill, we repeal 86 outdated or unnecessary acquisition policies. Actions like that help turn the page on an outdated system as we look to the future. This bill streamlines decision-making processes at the Pentagon and brings more competition to the procurement process. The committee recognizes that America is full of innovators who are developing exactly the kinds of technologies that dominate the battlefields of the 21st century. We have produced an NDAA that taps into that talent. Our deliberations resulted in an overwhelming vote count. Perhaps one reason for such a consensus was that our drafting process was collaborative and involved. The bill contains 985 items that were driven by Members of this body. Of that, 78 items were Member requests for military construction. Another 136 items came from Senators requesting budget increases for procurement operations and maintenance and research and development, and 771 items were policy ideas directly responding to Member requests. In total, those 985 items totaled 60 more than last year and are a sign of a strong, bipartisan consensus that we need to move quickly to modernize our Armed Forces. As those statistics bear out, this is a highly Member-driven bill. Our committee markup was characterized by that same collaborative spirit. We conducted 49 votes on amendments, working from 9:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., only 10 hours--perhaps a record--and I am certain it was an efficient and effective process. As I look at that 26-to-1 committee vote--have I emphasized that enough, a 26-yes, 1-no committee vote?--I want to thank my colleagues on the committee. My dear friend, the ranking member, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, has already spoken. He deserves credit. He and his colleagues contributed thoughtful and decisive ideas to this bill, and our staffs worked closely throughout the process. As I prepare to conclude, may I stress that a regular order process will always yield the best results. I regret that, last summer, the NDAA was not given full consideration on the Senate floor. This is our opportunity to correct that. I am confident that Leader Thune will want to do things differently this week and next. We need an open amendment process undertaken in the light of day. My fellow Senators have already filed hundreds of amendments. The American people deserve to see how their elected officials are voting on important national security matters. It has not been that long since we have had an open amendment process with multiple managers' packages and dozens of votes. As recently as 2023, we considered 900 amendments during floor debate, and we adopted 121 of them--the most amendments adopted to the Senate NDAA in years. We can do it again, and I ask my colleagues to join us in showing this great body by working as the Founders intended. In an increasingly dangerous world, this is our moment to provide a strong national defense. My colleagues on the Armed Services Committee stand fully behind this bill. We are eager to begin working with the rest of our colleagues in the Senate as we consider this year's National Defense Authorization Act on the floor. Let's have a resounding ``yes'' vote in just a few minutes, and then let's get to work.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously scheduled rollcall vote commence immediately.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, this month, Mississippi said farewell to Col. Carlyle ``Smitty'' Harris--a war hero, a family man, and a community leader who left a storied legacy. Many Mississippians know the story of Colonel Harris. In April 1965, during a mission over North Vietnam, Colonel Harris' F-105 was shot down by enemy artillery. He became the sixth American prisoner of war in that conflict and would spend nearly 8 years in captivity. Colonel Harris approached imprisonment with courage and resilience. He introduced his fellow POWs to the now-famous ``Tap Code,'' which allowed them to communicate with one another. His ingenuity helped sustain morale amid vile prison conditions. Colonel Harris maintained a sharp mind during and after his military deployment. He was committed to a lifetime of learning and had a resume to prove it. While serving on the faculty of the Air War College, he completed two degrees. He continued his education at the University of Mississippi Law School and returned to the classroom several years later for a degree in banking. Colonel Harris had a demanding work schedule, but he made time to volunteer. He approached numerous local leadership roles with the same dedication he gave to his Air Force and civilian careers. For years, he committed much of his spare time to philanthropic causes, including the Tupelo Rotary Club, the North Mississippi Medical Center, and the Boys and Girls Club. Although Colonel Harris lived a remarkable life, those who knew him recall a man with a down-to-earth character. Despite his professional accomplishments, he was most proud of his role as a loving husband, father, and grandfather. I join my fellow Mississippians in saluting Colonel ``Smitty'' Harris, remembering with gratitude and admiration his life of sacrifice and leadership.