Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017

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

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

Mr. President, I understand Senator Paul is on his way to discuss his amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the following Members to be recognized for debate: 15 minutes for Senator Cardin, 5 minutes for Senator Murphy, 7 minutes for Senator Moran, and 15 minutes for Senator Paul, and that following Senator Paul, Senator Corker be recognized.

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

Madam President, I want to discuss the amendment, which has to do with the importance of the authorization for use of military force in the ongoing U.S. operations against violent extremist organizations.

First of all, it is important to acknowledge why our current fight against terrorism is necessary. Earlier this week, we commemorated the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, which took the lives of thousands of innocent Americans, shook our Nation to its core, and, importantly, brought us together in common resolve to make sure that kind of tragedy would never, ever happen again.

In pursuit of that noble goal, thousands of brave men and women in uniform are currently deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other places. No matter what else we do in this body and on this legislation, we must always ask ourselves if we are doing everything we can to support those servicemembers as they risk their lives to defend us.

At the same time, we must recognize the ways in which the current conflict is different from when Congress passed the first authorization for use of military force in 2001. The landscape of the global fight against terrorism has changed dramatically with the emergence of ISIS and the spread of the threat beyond Afghanistan and Iraq. That is why I and many others have long called for updating the AUMFs.

Yet the nature of the conflict remains the same: Terrorist organizations continue to warp the religion of Islam and promote a radical ideology to recruit new fighters and plot violent attacks as part of their jihad against the United States of America and all that we stand for.

As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am open to a process that would develop a new AUMF specific to the current fight against ISIS and other terrorist organizations as identified by the administration. I would be very willing to work with my colleagues, including the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, as well as the Senator from Kentucky, to ensure that the legislation proceeded under regular order and included hearings, a committee markup, and a floor amendment process that ensured that each Member of this body was able to have his or her voice heard.

Haven't we had enough of bringing things to the floor without hearings, without amendments, without debate? I am confident that an overwhelming bipartisan majority of my colleagues would agree to approve the use of military force against the vicious, brutal enemy that we face in ISIS and its associated forces.

The amendment before us now falls far, far short of that process. Repealing the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs without simultaneously passing a new authorization would be premature, it would be irresponsible, it would threaten U.S. national security, and it would inhibit our democracy- building efforts abroad.

As we speak, we have troops deployed overseas who are engaged in the fight against ISIS, al-Qaida, the Taliban, and other violent extremist organizations. Repealing the existing AUMFs without having a replacement would jeopardize the legal authority for ongoing military operations. I cannot stand by silently as this body considers taking any action that would put our currently deployed servicemembers at risk.

It is also important to recognize that adopting this amendment would embolden our enemies and would send a signal to the members of the U.S. Armed Forces who are serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere that Congress and the American public no longer support their mission and their sacrifice. We cannot send that message, because it is not true.

In closing, I agree with those who support this amendment that the time has come for a new authorization for use of military force in the global fight against terrorism, but this amendment is, simply, not the way to do it. Rather than repealing the existing AUMFs without passing a new authorization, I urge my colleagues to work together on a new, bipartisan AUMF that addresses the threats we face today.

There are many Members on both sides of the aisle who have been working together on AUMFS, including the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. That is a process in which I would be proud to participate, and it is one that would honor those who are currently deployed in harm's way, fighting to make sure that our Nation never sees another day like 9/11. But I cannot support anything that fails to provide our men and women in uniform with everything they need-- including the legal authority--to keep our Nation safe.

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

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

Mr. President, I again thank my friend and colleague, Senator Jack Reed, for the continued cooperation which has characterized our work together.

First, I wish to say that this modification to the substitution amendment that I am offering, with the agreement and support of Senator Reed, includes 48 amendments from both Republicans and Democrats that will help improve this legislation. The modification submitted this morning included 56 amendments, also evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. I want to emphasize that these amendments which were just included are the result of bipartisan agreement on both sides. They would not have been proposed if they hadn't already been agreed to.

This means that now we have incorporated 104 bipartisan amendments in this legislation. The amendments have the support of both Republicans and Democrats in strengthening this legislation, making the NDAA more reflective of the voices and opinions of all Members of the Senate. So I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for allowing us--helping us come up with these amendments which tremendously improve the underlying legislation.

But I must say that we are at an impasse on about four amendments, all four of which are very important amendments, and we simply can't get agreement, which will probably call for the majority leader to file cloture.

I really wish we weren't filing cloture. I wish we were treating amendments the way we treated the Chair's amendment earlier today. Every Senator should have the right to speak and to vote on any issue that comes before this body, and that includes amendments.

Unfortunately, the majority leader will have to file cloture, we will go through a period of time, and then we will move forward with the bill, which, in my view, could be finished tomorrow.

The bad news is that not every Senator is able to be heard and able to file amendments--second-degree, whatever it is. They are going to be shut out by the cloture procedure. That is not right. It is not right. Every one of these 100 Senators should be able to vote, to amend, and to debate. That is what the Senate is supposed to be all about.

There are four basic amendments, and I won't describe them, but I hope that overnight my colleagues on both sides can sit down and figure out, as we have on a number of amendments, a way that we can reach a point where we can have up-or-down votes on these amendments, which are important to the Nation, particularly when we are talking about the National Defense Authorization Act.

So I again thank the Senator from Rhode Island, my partner. I thank him for all the work he is doing and ask him if he has any suggestions or ideas.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Rhode Island, and I thank him for the relationship we have developed over the years.

Here is the deal: We have basically four amendments--which are important amendments, and I don't mean in any way to denigrate their importance--that are forcing us to go to a mode where there will be no other amendments voted on. By failing to reach an agreement, we are shutting out our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and preventing them from having their amendments considered. That is why cloture is not a good thing. Cloture should be an act of desperation, and we should not be shutting out debate or amendments by any Member of the Senate.

I have talked a lot about the need to work on a bipartisan basis. I have talked a lot--let's do the regular order, committee markups, debate, legislation to the floor, debate, amendments, and then sent to the President of the United States. I believe we can still do that. I believe the progress we have made on this bill indicates that. But I hope my colleagues think about the fact that we ought to be able to decide, as we have on numerous aspects of this bill on a bipartisan basis, either to agree or to have those amendments debated and voted on. What we do when we invoke cloture is we silence Senators. That is not the way our Founding Fathers envisioned the Senate would function.

But I also would like to say that there are 104 amendments that we did agree to in a bipartisan fashion. I think we can be very happy about that. But there are still three or four salient issues that I wish we could just go ahead and debate and vote on, as we already have on a couple of very tough issues.

I thank all my colleagues for their cooperation. I thank them for our ability to get in all of these amendments. I am grateful for the votes we have taken. I hope that overnight, even though the majority leader will file cloture--and I support that--we should think overnight if there are ways of resolving the existing differences--not in agreement but to move forward with debate and votes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I thank my friend from Rhode Island. I hope we keep upmost in mind that what we are doing here affects the lives, the welfare, the benefits, and the capabilities of the finest in our society, the finest in America--the men and women in uniform.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the first time in 15 years, we are debating the congressional role in the declaration of war.

We have fought the longest war in U.S. history under an original authorization to go after the people who attacked us on 9/11. That war is long since over, the war has long since lost its purpose, and it is long past time that we have a debate in Congress about whether we should be at war.

It is the constitutional role of Congress. Interestingly, the folks you have heard on either side of the issue have said it is our job. It is what we should be doing. Yet we haven't done it for 16 years. Who in their right mind thinks that Congress is actually going to do their job without being forced to do their job?

My resolution is actually silent on whether we should still be at war. My resolution simply says that the resolutions we have previously passed will expire. I don't believe they have anything to do with the seven wars we are involved with currently, anyway, but if we were to force them to expire, we would then have a debate.

But for those who say: Yes, Congress should exert its authority; Congress should be involved in the initiation of war--they don't really believe that unless they are going to vote that way. What will happen is the continuation of the same--that we abdicate that role and let the President do whatever he wants.

It is worse than that. Let's say that we were to vote for my resolution and that the authorization to go to war after 9/11 expired. Do you think any of the wars would end? No. The neoconservatives and the neoliberals believe the President has unlimited authority. They call it article II authority for war. There is some authority given to the President--an enormous amount of authority--to execute the war but not to initiate the war. The sole duty of initiation of war was given specifically to Congress.

So if these authorities were to expire--the President already says: I have all the authority I want under the Constitution to do whatever I want. But that is not what our Founders wanted. Madison, if he were here, would vehemently disagree. Madison wrote that the executive branch is the branch most prone for war; therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature. It was supposed to be difficult to go to war.

Some wrung their hands and said: Oh, the Senate can never agree on any authorization to go to war. How long did it take us after Pearl Harbor? Twenty-four hours, and we declared war on Japan. How long did it take us after 9/11? It took 3 days. We can come together as a body when we are attacked, when we are unified in purpose. But guess what--after 16 years, it is difficult to determine the purpose in Afghanistan.

Also, those who say: We need a new authorization, but it is going to authorize war anywhere, anytime, with no geographic limit and no time limit--basically they would be authorizing everything we are doing now and not putting any limitations on it. We are in Yemen. We are aiding and abetting the Saudi war in Yemen. Yet there has been no vote on it. Seventeen million people live on the edge of starvation because of the Saudi blockade and bombing campaign. We are aiding and abetting that. Yet there has been no vote here in Congress.

Look, we have problems here at home. These wars are costing trillions of dollars. They are unauthorized. We

have not voted on them. And I say, look, let's pay attention to some of the problems we have here at home. We are going to have a $150 billion tab for the Hurricane Harvey damage in Texas. Yet we continue with unauthorized, unconstitutional, undeclared war. I think it is time to think about the problems we have here at home. I think it is time to think about the $20 trillion debt we have. But we still have this wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth, saying: What if Congress doesn't do its job? What if we allowed this authorization of force to expire and we didn't get another one?

The thing is, that is abdicating your constitutional duty. The duty is to do what is within your constitutional duty. It is not to say: Well, the other Congressmen won't do their job, so I am not going to do my job.

Our job is to enforce, obey, and execute the Constitution. The Constitution says Congress shall declare war. It doesn't say the President can go to war anytime, anywhere around the globe. It says Congress shall declare war. So for the first time in 15 years, we are debating whether Congress has a role in this.

Those who vote no against my resolution are basically voting--even though they will say otherwise, they are voting to say: Well, let's just let the status quo go on. The President can do what he wants. It is too emotional, it is too controversial to debate war. So we will keep letting the President do whatever he wants.

My vote is to grab power back. My vote is to say: The Senate has prerogative here. The Constitution gives the power to the legislature. That is what this vote is about. It is about grabbing back the power to declare war and saying this is a Senate prerogative. So the majority, in all likelihood, will say: No, we do not want to do that. We think that would risk some war somewhere, sometime.

That is the point. We should be debating where we should be at war. Should we be at war in Somalia? Should we be at war in Libya? Should we be at war in Yemen? Should we be at war in Iraq, in Syria, in Afghanistan?

Look, President Obama ran on ending the wars; yet he ended up taking the war and bombing campaign to seven countries without his having any authorization. Intriguingly, the left was relentless in criticizing George Bush; yet George Bush did come to Congress. We had a vote to go after those who attacked us on 9/11. We had an ill-fought campaign with regard to the Iraq war, but we did actually vote on it. We have not voted for a generation. Should one generation be able to bind another generation?

Realize that, if we do not force these authorizations to expire, this war could go on forever. This is 1984. This is George Orwell's saying that Oceania has always been at war with East Asia and then, a month later, his saying that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia-- because no one is stepping up to say no. That is what Congress is supposed to do. We are supposed to be a voice that debates and asks: Should we go to war? It is part of doing our job, but the only way to get Congress to do its job is to actually let these expire.

We should have a full-throated debate over who initiates war. There is no murkiness to the Constitution. The Constitution is explicit. The power of the initiation of war--the declaration of war--lies with Congress, but the war in Afghanistan has gone on for 16 years now. Our young men and women who will be fighting in the war in the next year or so were not yet born on 9/11. We have long since killed the people who perpetrated 9/11. With the killing of bin Laden, there is no person left in the leadership of al-Qaida or the Taliban who was around at that period of time. Yet we say: Well, it is still the Taliban. If you are going to say that we are going to fight until the end of time--that we are going to have a perpetual war until the end of time--and that we are going to kill every radical Islamist in the world, it is an impossibility.

I would say, at the very least, let's have a debate. If that is your purpose, if that is your goal, and if that is what you stand for, step forward, and let's have a debate. Let's debate the war in Yemen. Let's debate the war in Somalia. Let's debate whether we should be bombing people in Nigeria. Let's debate whether we should be in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. Let's have a debate about all of these different wars. Let's not just muddle on and say: Oh, the President can do what he wants.

Realize that the people in this body who are for perpetual war do not even think we should have any role in it. They tell me quietly every day that the President can do whatever he wants under article II of the Constitution. That is absolutely false. Read the Federalist Papers. There is extensive debate over the war-making power. From Washington, to Adams, to Jefferson, to Madison, they all said very explicitly: We give this power to Congress because we fear the perpetual wars that we have seen in Europe. We fear the wars of brother fighting brother and brother fighting cousin within these royal disputes that went on endlessly in Europe. He set up our founding document to try to make war difficult, but when we have been attacked, it has been easy to come together. For 9/11, virtually unanimously, we came together within 3 days. For Pearl Harbor, it was within 24 hours.

What I would say to my colleagues is: Do your job. This is your constitutional role. Let's let these expire, and over the next 6 months, let's debate whether we should be at war and where.

I, for one, am one who says that we should oppose unauthorized, undeclared, unconstitutional war. At this particular time, there are no limits on war. The 9/11 proclamation has been interpreted so widely that it could mean anything. You have people who interpret it widely, but you also have people who say that the Constitution says that the President can do anything. This is not what our Founding Fathers intended.

I am proud to be a part of and an instigator of the debate. For the first time in 15 years, the full Senate will vote on whether we have a role in initiating war, whether we should continue to be at war, or whether we should even vote on whether we should continue to be at war.

I urge the Senate to adopt my amendment, which would be a 6-month moratorium--a 6-month sunset--on the 2001 and 2002 resolution so that we could then have the real debate. But mark my words: Those who will come out and say that they are for the real debate are not really for it unless they are willing to sunset it, because we have been going for 16 years without having a real debate. There will be no real debate on war unless we pass this resolution.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I join my colleague Senator Thune in talking about the Defense Authorization Act, which is the bill that is before the Senate right now.

The preamble to the Constitution says that one of the purposes of the founding of the government was to ``provide for the common defense.'' I believe that the No. 1 priority of the Federal Government is to do that job. There have been lots of arguments about what level of government can better do lots of other things, but I do not hear many arguments about what the job of defending the country is all about or who has to do that job.

When we send our troops into harm's way, it is our job to ensure that they have the tools they need and that they have the resources they need to carry out their missions. That is what Chairman McCain has done in this authorization bill that is before the Senate today.

Senate passage of this bill would mark the 56th year in a row that Congress has passed the National Defense Authorization Act. It should give one some indication of how serious that job is. There are very few things the Congress manages to do every year, but as for the authorization of how we do what we do, this authorization bill provides the authorities that the military needs for it to defend the Nation.

The world is a rapidly changing place. Our responsibility to defend freedom in that world and the freedom of Americans is something that, every year, needs to be carefully looked at and recalculated and recalibrated, which is what Chairman McCain and his committee have done with this bill.

I support the bill, and I want to talk about some of the key provisions in the bill.

First of all, Senator Thune just mentioned a pay raise of 2.1 percent for our troops. It is a pay raise they rightfully deserve. It is a pay raise because of the demands on the military today--the time spent and what we expect our military to do with fewer resources and fewer people. We expect them to do a bigger job, and I want to talk about that a little later. A 2.1-percent pay raise is a pay raise that is richly deserved by those who defend us.

The bill enhances the capability of our military to defeat ISIS, to defeat al-Qaida, and to defeat other enemies. Even though this is 16 years after 9/11, we still have a hard time fully understanding the emerging threat of these enemies--the nontraditional threat, the nontraditional combatant. These are things we need to continue to look at carefully, to adjust to, to understand their prowess on social media and other places and to understand what could happen there.

This bill focuses on terrorism, cyber warfare, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

By the way, on cyber, the Missouri National Guard has one of the leading cyber defense units anywhere in the country. As I have said about this program before, this is a place at which the Reserves and National Guard can particularly do a great job because they go in and out of a different environment every day--going to work defending the utility grid, defending the financial grid--and know what those attacks are like as they step up and do their work as reservists or guardsmen.

This bill ensures that our men and women in uniform have the equipment they need to succeed, including looking at the growing capacity of our enemies. We never want people who are defending us to be in a fair fight. We always want them to be in an unfair fight, and we want any advantage that could possibly be given to be on the side of those who defend our country and defend freedom.

I am glad that this bill projects some of the vital things that happen in our State and, of course, in the Presiding Officer's State. Lots of things happen in Alaska, as they do in Missouri.

This bill further advances the need to replace the national geospatial facility in St. Louis, where 30-plus percent of the people work who monitor our defense posture from the air. They are looking to see what is happening, when it is happening, and how it is happening. It is fully redundant with the facility in Springfield, VA. If one of those does not work for whatever reason, the other one becomes the 100- percent provider of our geospatial activity that goes on all of the time.

There is a new hospital at Fort Leonard Wood in this bill. It has been the No. 1 medical priority for the Defense Department for about a decade. This funds the first phase of the replacement of that facility.

There is an Air National Guard training facility at Rosecrans in St. Joseph where our NATO allies go to learn. In recent times, 19 countries have come and learned the lift capacity--how to use those C-130s in the most effective and efficient way. That is recognized in this bill.

The AVCRAD, which is the aviation repair facility in Springfield, MO, is where a $34 million investment would return $62 million in the first year. They are saving about $111 million at that facility every year now, but phase 3 in that facility would return $62 million the first year. I do not know that I have ever talked about a government investment before from which in the first 6 months you get all of the money back in a week or so.

The bill also provides robust funding for A-10 maintenance. That A-10 Reserve unit at Whiteman is where the Secretary of the Air Force just was, and when you are talking to troops on the ground, they would always like the A-10 in the air, supporting them on the ground.

There is money here for Super Hornets to go on our aircraft carriers. It does not matter how many aircraft carriers you have if you do not have the planes to put on the aircraft carriers, and this bill recognizes that.

Something that I have worked for for some time--and I know the Presiding Officer understands so well--is the Military Family Stability Act. It is in this bill, and it was in the Senate bill last year. It was not able to be in the final bill, but it will be in the final bill that the House and Senate pass this year, I am confident. The Secretary of Defense supports it; all of the Joint Chiefs support it; and our House colleagues have supported it. This is the bill that I filed with Senator Gillibrand about 3 years ago, which simply provides more flexibility for our military families.

The strength of the military is in the military family structure. This allows the family to either move early or stay longer at these assignments. Normally, they are 2-year to 3-year assignments. Lots can happen in 2 or 3 years, but not everything else perfectly works out in 2 or 3 years. So for employment reasons or for education reasons, if a family decides it is to their advantage to use the family support the military provides, with housing and other benefits, and they stay another 2 months to finish school, for a teaching contract to end, or for some other spouse activity to come to a reasonable conclusion or, frankly, to do just the opposite--to go to the new assignment that you know you already have, but to do that just a little bit earlier so that it works better for the family--to start school on time, to start a job on time, a job that just has to start when that job has to start--they can do that. As we have more dual-career families in the military, this is one of the things we can do.

So this allows up to 6 months for the person in the service to determine where they would like their family benefit to be used, and then they become responsible for their own upkeep while they have either gone early or stayed late. But usually that is available. Bachelor officers' quarters are available at barracks on the base. Because of that, there is no cost to the Defense Department in doing the right thing.

I want to thank Chairman McCain for the work he has done on this particular addition to the bill, as well as Samantha Clark on his staff, who has worked hard to see to it that this could be not only workable but easily understandable by the military. I also want

to thank Congressman Joe Wilson and Congresswoman Susan Davis, who were key to including these provisions in the House National Defense Authorization Act. So families will see something--an opportunity here for them that they haven't seen in the past.

This year's Defense authorization takes the steps necessary to rebuild our military, but we still have more work ahead of us.

Sadly, this summer, we lost more than 40 servicemembers in accidents related to readiness challenges that are impacting the military. Sailors were killed aboard the USS Fitzgerald and the USS John S. McCain. Marines were killed after a C-130 aircraft crashed in Mississippi and an MV-22 Osprey crashed off the coast of Australia. Soldiers have been lost in helicopter accidents in Hawaii and Yemen.

Just last week, Mackenzie Eaglen with AEI wrote: ``Troops are now more likely to die in `peacetime' incidents than active hostilities or combat.''

That is absolutely and totally unacceptable.

Total casualties in Afghanistan, for example, in 2015 were 22, in 2016 were 14, and in 2017 were 11. They were all respected, and it is regrettable that those lives were lost. In those same years, the Department of the Navy lost 28 people, 22 people, and this year--not even over yet--43 people in accidents. We cannot let this continue.

We have asked the military to do too much with too little for too long, and this bill addresses that.

So there are numerous threats to our Nation, and it is critical that we not waste any more time in working to resolve our budget issues. We need to pass this legislation and come up with the appropriations that then support the authorizing bill and go back to the No. 1 priority of the Federal Government, which is to defend the country.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I think it is clear to people all across America that the U.S. healthcare system needs reform. Premiums for health insurance are going up by double digits across the country. People living in almost half of the country only have one company selling ObamaCare plans. Millions of people are struggling. They are struggling to get coverage they can afford so they can get the care they need. I will state that it is all because of the healthcare law that the Democrats wrote and passed in Congress and inflicted upon the American people,

which raised the costs for people all across the country and limited their choices.

Today the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, and other Democrats said they want to take this failing healthcare system even further. They call their plan ``Medicare for all.'' Don't be fooled. They want to take a plan that has government much more involved in the healthcare of the American people and go much further. I don't believe it is actually a serious plan to help fix the challenges we are facing in this country, but it is now the new litmus test for the liberal left. If this idea were ever to become law, it would mean worse care and it would be outrageously expensive.

The plan the Democrats are talking about would amount to complete Washington control over the healthcare of every man, woman, and child in America, and taxpayers would have to pick up the tab.

Supporters of putting the Federal Government in Washington, DC, in charge of personal healthcare decisions like to claim that this is the way that other countries do it as well. They like to cite as an example the United Kingdom. Well, a lot of people in the United Kingdom see their system of nationalized healthcare entering a death spiral, and it looks a lot like what has happened to ObamaCare.

The waiting lines in England have recently gotten a lot longer for people waiting to get care. They are actually setting new records for how long you have to wait in line to get care in England. For emergency care, they have more people waiting in line in the emergency room for 12 hours or longer. Those numbers have gone up--12 hours or longer--and it has gotten worse.

Let's say you have a chronic condition, a long-term medical condition. To start treatment for long-term medical conditions, the number of people having to wait 18 weeks or longer has gone up. If Democrats get their way, the American people will have the same kinds of delays. It is inevitable. The problem isn't just the delays. If Washington pays all of the bills, Washington will want much tighter control over care.

The Democrats' new scheme will come with a much more powerful rationing board. You can see it coming. In England, the rationing of healthcare means that certain medications are not allowed. There are limits on things like knee and hip operations. The same thing is true in Canada. Medical boards in some parts of the country have banned surgeries for people who are obese or who are smokers. How do you think that would work in the United States? Close to 40 percent of Americans are now considered obese. Would they all be blocked from getting operations that would help improve their health and quality of life? It is only if the rationing board were to say so.

The British have to ration healthcare partly because of the enormous cost of so-called free medical care. They also have a shortage of people who actually provide the care. Since 2016, there has been a net loss of more than 5,000 nurses and midwives across the British healthcare system. More than a quarter of the nurses who quit cited disillusionment over the quality of care provided to patients. Nurses are quitting because of the poor quality of care provided to patients. It is a great concern.

The United Kingdom ranks 20th out of 24th among Western countries for breast cancer survival. For survival, the United States is first. If you are a woman with breast cancer or a man with prostate cancer, your chances of survival and successful treatment are much, much greater in the United States than they are in Great Britain. It is not that the doctors in this country are that much smarter. It is that people get care sooner. There are not all these long waiting lines. But that will happen if the plan endorsed by 15 Democrats in the Senate and the majority of the Democrats in the House were to ever become law.

Let's talk about stroke. For the most common kind of stroke, the United Kingdom is 25th out of 30 countries in terms of recovery, solutions, and success. The United States is fourth.

Of course, all of what the Democrats are proposing will not come cheap. Democrats in California had their own scheme earlier this year. When the group that looks at what the cost is going to be reviewed it-- and I was in the State senate in Wyoming, and in any key piece of legislation, we would have to do a fiscal note, which is what it is going to cost--in California what they proposed would cost about $400 billion a year. So how much does the entire State of California pay to run the whole State over the course of a year? What is their budget for the year? It is less than half that amount. So what they are proposing on healthcare is double what they pay for everything that the State of California does.

Last year, Senator Sanders gave a rough sketch of his plan as part of his Presidential campaign. It would have raised Washington's total healthcare expenditures by $32 trillion over just the first 10 years. To pay for it, he wanted to raise taxes, including higher payroll taxes on workers. The problem was that all of these new taxes would pay for less than half of the government's new spending. The legislation written and cosponsored by Democrats in the House says that it would be paid for by things like--and this is in their words--``a modest tax on unearned income'' and a ``small tax on stock and bond transactions.''

Remember how President Obama promised that his healthcare law wouldn't raise taxes on middle-class families--in his words--by a single dime? It turns out that the law included dozens of taxes on American working families, certainly including middle-class Americans all across the country.

Democrats say that total Washington control over healthcare would make things so efficient, that it would save a whole lot of money. Does anyone believe that is ever going to happen?

A lot of people have the stress of dealing between their doctor and their insurance company, and there are a lot of problems out there. Nothing in the Democrats' takeover of healthcare changes any of that. It just means that the people will be caught in the middle between a fight with their government and a bunch of unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington, DC. How is that better? Where will we see savings from that? The Democrats have no real answers, just empty promises.

You can tell that it is not a real plan because when Democrats had a chance to actually vote on this idea in the Senate, they took a pass. In July, the Senate voted on a bill written by House Democrats. We brought it to the floor of the Senate during the healthcare debate and put it up for a vote. As to the bill that half of the Democrats in the House had cosponsored, they said: Let's give the Senators an opportunity. Every Republican voted against it, and 43 Democrats voted present. Democrats had a chance to stand up and vote for the idea that they love to talk about, but not a single Senator voted for it, including Senator Sanders.

Now some of us suspected that this was where the debate over ObamaCare was headed all along. The healthcare law, as passed years ago, was so obviously flawed that there was no way it would work the way the Democrats promised. You had to wonder if Democrats actually wanted it to fail so they could push for more Washington control, more government control over your healthcare.

You can call it the old Potomac two-step. When we were debating ObamaCare in 2009, Senator Sanders came to the floor of the Senate and said that a full Washington takeover of healthcare was the way to go. Today he is taking his shot. The ObamaCare markets are in shambles. There is no denying that ObamaCare failed to keep its promises. The American people are paying a very steep price for the failures of the law.

The promises that Democrats are making about their new healthcare scheme are even more outlandish. When it fails, the damage will be catastrophic. We cannot allow that to happen to the American people.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the floor.

The images and stories we have witnessed in the aftermath of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma are devastating. I want to thank every American and every Montanan who has pitched in,

who has volunteered, who has donated to help the recovery efforts in Texas and Florida.

I rise today to remind the country there is another devastating and ongoing natural disaster that is impacting thousands of families, costing taxpayers billions of dollars, and draining local economies. As the eyes of the Nation were on Florida this weekend--and rightfully so--Montana wildfires consumed another 150,000 acres.

To date, we have seen over 1.1 million acres burned in Montana this summer. This is more than three times the 10-year average and nearly the size of the State of Delaware. The impact is widespread.

The wildfires have burned farming and grazing land that is used to help feed this country and valuable timber that sustains good jobs in mills across the State. The 1.1 million acres we lost includes world- class hunting, fishing, and hiking land, where families can escape and grandparents can take their grandkids to their favorite fishing hole. The fires have consumed favorite hiking trails and public access sites that help drive our outdoor economy in our State, which sustains over 70,000 jobs a year in Montana alone. The smoke from these fires has put our health at risk--the health of our kids and our neighbors exposed to the smoke that covers the State of Montana.

In addition to burning nearly 2,000 square miles, these fires are burning a hole in our budget. As of this morning, taxpayers have paid nearly $350 million to fight the wildfires of Montana alone. Across the West, that number is well over $2 billion. To make matters worse, the Forest Service is borrowing $300 million from other accounts to help fight wildfires. The Forest Service is forced to rob Peter to pay Paul--money that should be used to prevent fire seasons, maintain and improve forest trails and roads, research and development for better forest management policies, and to fund the work that must get done to make our forests more resilient--I am talking about thinning, cutting, removing debris. The Forest Service is also spending money that should be used to mitigate wildfire risk to fight fire.

Yes, you heard me correctly. We have again entered into a vicious cycle, where we take money from wildfire mitigation and the preparedness accounts in order to pay for the fighting of wildfires that exist today. Each year, we spend more money to fight wildfires, which leaves less money to prevent wildfires. Now, this is nothing new. Fire borrowing is a trend we have seen for the last 20 years. With each passing year, as fire seasons get longer and more intense, our fire borrowing practice leaves an entire agency with almost no budget certainty or flexibility to complete its core mission. Congress has already paid the Forest Service more than 300 million additional dollars to fight fire, but I think we are going to blow well past that number. That might be enough for Montana alone, but we also need to be able to help the firefighters in California, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and across the West.

In the meantime, forest management on the ground is hamstrung, and we have no long-term fix for this problem. As a result, we are investing less in active forest management, which then leaves our forests even more vulnerable to catastrophic wildfires. Frankly, the Forest Service is becoming a firefighting agency, not a forest management agency.

When the fire season ends, our restorative work begins but only if there is money in the bank to do that restorative work. I am concerned that without immediate action from Congress, the Forest Service's hollowed-out budget will not provide adequate resources to restore streams and prepare for spring runoffs. If the Forest Service budget leaves Forest Service employees handcuffed this fall, our clean water, along with our blue-ribbon trout streams, will be put at risk, but that isn't all. The impact of this fire season has been felt far beyond our forests.

This devastating fire season has undercut Montana's employees and put jobs at risk. I have heard from small business owners who have seen their bottom line slashed during this fire season. A bad fire launches a ripple effect in the region that results in empty booths at the family restaurants and vacant rooms at local motels.

Wildfires have left our air quality so hazardous that school recesses have been canceled, high school football and soccer games have been moved hundreds of miles away, and folks wear breathing masks when they go pick up their mail.

Farmers and ranchers have lost infrastructure to fire, and extreme drought transformed a very promising spring into an underwhelming harvest. These impacts are real, and unfortunately they are not temporary. Folks in Montana will be dealing with the impacts of this recordbreaking fire season for many months and, in some cases, many years to come.

As Congress works again to get Florida and Texas the help they deserve, I am here to ensure that Montanans get the resources they need too. Here is what this Senate and Congress must do.

The Forest Service must be fully reimbursed for every dime they remove from maintenance, mitigation, and restoration accounts to fight wildfires. To repeat, the Forest Service must be fully reimbursed for every dime that was removed from maintenance, mitigation, and restoration accounts to fight wildfires. Why? We cannot leave the Forest Service with a hollowed-out budget. It is critical they have the resources they need to help communities recover from catastrophic wildfires. The Forest Service must have the tools to go through a public process so we can cut more trees and remove the dead and dying debris that fueled these fires.

Congress must pass legislation to end the broken way we fund wildfires so we can treat wildfire funding just like the natural disaster it is.

The third thing is, every small business and family farm or ranch in Montana that has suffered loss related to wildfires must have urgent access to the available resources at the Small Business Administration and at the USDA. I have personally contacted the administration to ensure that resources remain available for Montanans because our needs don't end after the wildfires are put out.

The fourth thing is, the Senate must fast-track legislation that provides local governments the additional resources and mitigation efforts they need to recover from these wildfires. I am working on a bill with other western Senators to ensure States like Montana and other States impacted by devastating wildfires have access to adequate recovery resources.

Finally, after a month of recordbreaking hurricanes and historic drought and wildfires, it is long past time for the Senate to have an honest debate about climate change. Back home in Montana, we are in the middle of September and there are still 21 priority fires burning and there are still many Montanans who need help.

So over the coming weeks and months, as we take steps to recover from other natural disasters around the country, we need to work together to not only help those in desperate need but also move forward with long- term solutions, solutions that will help us deal with the catastrophes, whether it is floods, hurricanes, droughts, or wildfires. If we are able to work together and get that done, we will indeed have done our job in the U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, earlier this week, we commemorated the 16th anniversary of the attack on our country on September 11. It was a day that I think none of us will ever forget. We were attacked, and we wanted to take all necessary action to protect our country and go after those who perpetrated this attack against America.

I was part of the Congress at that time and was part of the Congress that passed the 2001 authorization for the use of military force that was targeted toward Afghanistan, and I was part of the Congress that when we took up the 2002 authorization for use of military force against Iraq, I voted against that authorization.

It has now been 14 years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the end of the Saddam Hussein regime. Yet we still have the authority for the use of military force against Iraq, and it is still being used. It is time for that authorization to end. I take this time to support Senator Paul's efforts to put a termination date on the 2002 authorization and to put a termination date on the 2001 authorization.

The 2001 authorization was the first we passed. It was done virtually unanimously. There was some objection, but very few, because we wanted our country to hold those responsible in Afghanistan for the attack against America. That authorization is now 16 years

old. Let me read for my colleagues exactly what that authorization said, what we passed 16 years ago:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and

appropriate force against those Nations, organizations, or

persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or

aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,

2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to

prevent any future acts of international terrorism against

the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

That is the authorization. It is pretty specific. It is pretty specific to go after those who were responsible for the attack against the United States that was centered in Afghanistan, and it was used for that purpose. Our military took action against Afghanistan as a result of the attack against our country, and that was authorized by Congress.

It is hard to understand how you can get from the reading of this authorization of the use of military force today as congressionally authorized against ISIS in the Middle East, in Africa, or anywhere in the world, but that is the interpretation that has been given to the action of Congress in 2001. I think that interpretation cannot be defended.

Congress has a responsibility to act. We have a responsibility to specifically authorize the new threats that we have against our country and what military force is appropriate. That is our responsibility. This is a different threat than we saw 16 years ago. It is our responsibility to give congressional authorization for the use of military force. Some say it cannot be done. Well, if it can't be done, then we don't agree on the authorization of force.

Let me just remind my colleagues that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, over 3 years ago, passed an authorization for the use of military force. We came together in our committee, and I know Senator Kaine and Senator Flake have worked on a proposal that is certainly much more focused toward the current circumstances. Some of us may have amendments to that, some of us may disagree with it, but that is the debate we should be having. There should be no debate that the 2001 authorization does not apply to our current circumstances.

We should pass an authorization that is tailored to allow the President to effectively go after the direct threats to the United States. That is our responsibility. We owe it to the American people and we owe it to the men and women who serve in our military to give them clear authority from Congress in their military operations. There clearly needs to be direction given by Congress. We have seen an abuse of the 2001 authorization, so we need to be pretty clear.

I must tell you that I have heard over and over again from our generals that there is no military-only victory against ISIS. We can't win this by a military victory alone. We need to make sure that there are leaders in countries that protect their citizens, not only their physical security but good governance in their human rights.

We have new challenges we need to deal with--cyber threats against the United States. We are concerned about a physical caliphate; now we are concerned about a virtual caliphate as we take more and more of the territory away from the ISIS forces. So that is what we need to do.

Senator Paul's amendment gives us that opportunity by saying quite clearly that the 2001 and 2002 authorizations need to end--need to end--that we don't today have clear authorization from Congress to pursue the military campaign against ISIS, and we need to have that.

There are some who say: Well, what happens if we don't meet that deadline? Well, let me tell you something. The President has plenty of authority. Read article 2 of the Constitution. He has the inherent power to protect our country and our national security, and he can take action in order to do that.

I was particularly struck as to why we need the Paul amendment when I received a letter in my capacity on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from Secretary Mattis and Secretary Tillerson. You see, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was having meetings, trying to figure out how to proceed on the authorization for the use of military force. During one of those meetings, we had the opportunity to have Secretary Mattis and Secretary Tillerson before us, and we had a candid discussion about what type of authorization would make sense. It was done in a closed setting so we could have a candid discussion, and I am not going to reveal the specifics because I thought that is what we should be doing. But I can tell you, I left with the impression that there was room for Congress to work with the administration on the authorization of force, and I was hopeful that we were going to have an open hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, on the AUMF.

We had similar discussions under the Obama administration. As a result of those discussions, President Obama submitted to Congress what he believed would be an appropriate authorization for the use of military force. That authorization was never taken up, but he asked for it.

Well, just recently, we received notice from Secretary Tillerson and Secretary Mattis that the President does not want Congress to adjust the authorizations because he has adequate authority to do what he wants to do. I understand that. If you take their interpretation--it is not just this administration; it is prior administrations' interpretation of the AUMF--they have a blank check. But that is not our responsibility being carried out.

We are the ones who are responsible for the authorization of force, not the President of the United States, and according to this President, he has blank-check authorization from Congress.

So it is our responsibility to make sure that when our men and women are sent into harm's way, they have direct authorization from the Congress of the United States unless, by the way, there is an urgent situation that requires the President to act, which he can do under article 2.

So I urge my colleagues that we have a chance to start this debate right here and now by supporting the Paul amendment, and I intend to do that.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the National Defense Authorization Act before us is more than just an important defense policy bill; it shows what we value as a nation.

In Michigan, we value our freedom. We cherish the rights we enjoy as citizens of this great country. Above all, we honor those brave men and women who are willing to lay down their lives to protect our freedom and defend our rights.

We also value our workers and our businesses. You put Michigan's workers and entrepreneurs on a level playing field, and they will out- work, out-build, and out-imagine anybody anywhere.

I am standing here today because within the NDAA is an important opportunity to not just meet the needs of our national defense but also to help create good-paying American jobs in Michigan and across the country. It is true that we can't have a strong economy without a strong military, but it is also true that when we invest in businesses that are creating good-paying jobs here at home, we are improving our own security. I have seen evidence of this in Michigan.

In 2015, I was honored to lead the first-ever instate Michigan delegation to tour all of our State's military installations. We started at Selfridge Air National Guard Base, which has just celebrated 100 great years of service to our Nation. We then went to TACOM/TARDEC, which--both are the people on the front lines for our Army with research as well as making sure they have the vehicles and the supplies and everything they need to be able to do their jobs and protect us. We went to Camp Graying, Battle Creek, and Fort Custer. We saw firsthand how critical their work is, not just for our national defense but also to Michigan's economy and jobs.

During the past 2 years, I have had the opportunity to visit over 120 small businesses all around Michigan. That is a very inspiring thing to do--talking with people who put their own dollars and sweat and tears into creating a business, products and services they care deeply and passionately about.

One of those visits really stood out to me--the connection between our defense and jobs. R.A. Miller Industries--RAMI for short--is a Grand Haven manufacturer of high-tech products for our military, including very high-tech antennas. Clear communication--the kind provided by RAMI's talented workforce--is critical to the success of military missions.

RAMI's CEO told me that the Buy American Act--a law passed in 1933 that gives priority to American companies when the Federal Government purchases goods--was no longer working. We checked into it, and it turns out that he was absolutely right.

This is no small deal. The U.S. Federal Government is the single largest purchaser of goods and services in the world, spending some $450 billion annually on everything from file folders to fighter jets. ``Buy American'' rules exist because we as a nation believe that when we invest taxpayer dollars to buy products, we ought to be supporting American companies that are creating good-paying American jobs. It is simple common sense, but over time, we seem to have lost some of that sense.

Thanks to loopholes and waivers, American workers are missing out on a whole lot of jobs they could be doing, things they could be making. The biggest of these loopholes allows the Department of Defense to waive ``Buy American'' rules for products used overseas. Yes, the DOD uses a whole lot of products overseas. In fact, between 2001 and 2016, the Department of Defense spent more than $35 billion on over 150,000 items--including motorcycles and radios and even airplane engines--that didn't meet ``Buy American'' rules. That is 150,000 motorcycles, radios, airplane engines, and more that could have been made by American companies like RAMI and by American workers in Michigan and across the country.

That is not right. It is not smart. It makes no sense for American workers--certainly not for the people I represent in Michigan, where we know how to make a lot of different kinds of things very well--and it makes no sense for American taxpayers. That is why I am introducing three amendments to toughen up our ``Buy American'' requirements so that American workers and businesses come first, where they belong.

The first amendment is simple. It would stop the overseas exemption in the Buy American Act and require the Department of Defense to prioritize products made in the United States. We know there are from time to time reasons why maybe we need a waiver, but we should not have this gigantic hole in ``Buy American'' provisions by having these overseas exemptions. In Michigan, our defense industry supports more than 105,000 jobs. It is only right that we should invest in American companies, not the competition.

My second amendment would require the Government Accountability Office to review ``Buy American'' training practices so that contracts and personnel can better comply with current law.

The third amendment would require the Department of Defense to work with the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which I was pleased to help create years ago, to identify more small- and medium-sized manufacturers that can provide products that comply with ``Buy American'' standards.

I know we have the businesses and the workers. We need to be paying attention to this and making it a priority.

When a mom and dad in Saginaw sit down to do their taxes, I want them to know the hard-earned money they are spending for our national defense is creating jobs here at home--preferably in Michigan. At the same time, I want businesses and workers from Mackinaw City to Macomb County, Muskegon to Grand Marais, to have the opportunity to contribute to not just our economy but our national security.

We all talk about how America's workers are the best in the world. It is time to prove that we mean it.

The father of a former Member of this Chamber had a great way of saying this, and I would like to end by quoting him. This is former Vice President Joe Biden: ``My dad used to have an expression. Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.''

Unfortunately, loopholes like the overseas exemption suggest that we don't value American jobs, American workers, American businesses. They suggest that we think it is no big deal to buy products from a company in another country that can be made in Battle Creek, MI, or Detroit or Flint or Grand Rapids or anywhere across Michigan or anyplace in the country, for that matter. They suggest that we think it is fine to create jobs for workers in Munich when we have workers in Marquette, MI, who are just as talented, just as able, and just as ready--I would argue more so--to get to work to keep us safe.

Michigan workers--American workers will out-work, out-build, and out- imagine anyone. It is time to make sure that they are at the front of the line for good-paying jobs, that we are focused on making sure they have jobs, and that we are putting them to work.

I am hopeful that colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support these amendments to move us a step forward in that direction.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, thank you.

Prior to arriving in the U.S. Senate after the election of 2010, I was a Member of the House of Representatives, and I am one of the 30 percent of us in Congress today who were here in 2001 and approved the use of military force in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

I hate to say this at this moment because the vote is so closely pending, but I don't know what the right answer to this question is-- the one we face today. I firmly believe that it is the U.S. Senate and U.S. Congress's authority and constitutional responsibility to declare war. I worry that the resolution that is before us only eliminates the current resolutions, only eliminates the current authority. What is missing is the followup.

I just heard my colleague from Connecticut indicate that he will work vigorously to see that we have the opportunity to vote for a resolution authorizing force, but in some ways we have the cart ahead of the horse.

I will be the one who will always argue that it is our responsibility, it is Congress's responsibility to make these decisions as determined by the U.S. Constitution. It gives us that authority and that responsibility. The question in my mind is, Is it prudent to eliminate the authorization today before we have a new authorization in place? And I don't know the answer to that question.

While I have heard my colleagues say we will work to accomplish that, having experienced the U.S. Senate now for the last 7 years, I worry that a 6-month opportunity will be forgone, those authorizations may not occur, and, at best, once again the U.S. Senate may be presented with a fait accompli, which is, here is a resolution authorizing force. We are out of time. The 6 months is gone. Take it or leave it.

We will have a gun to our heads to approve, in an expeditious way, something that is not really what I would be supportive of. Once again, I will have

the dilemma: Do I vote for some authorization of force even though it is not the one that is well thought out?

If I thought we were going to do an authorization of force, I would have expected it to have occurred already. I commend Senator Corker, the chairman of the committee, and many of my colleagues who have worked to put an authorization--a resolution in place and voted it out of committee, but no vote has occurred on the U.S. Senate floor, and no vote has occurred in the U.S. House of Representatives. I don't know whether we are setting the stage for us to be once again in a position of ``Here it is; take it or leave it,'' or worse than that, I suppose, is leaving those who serve our country in a position of not knowing whether their Congress supports their efforts.

It is not as if this is prospective; we already have troops on the ground in Afghanistan. I just returned from Afghanistan. That was my fourth visit there. I was there over the Labor Day weekend. I came to the conclusion that we belong in Afghanistan. I don't believe this is about rebuilding Afghanistan as much as it is about protecting Americans. There are 21 terrorist organizations at work in Afghanistan, out to kill citizens of the United States, attack us, and we have the Government of Afghanistan allowing us the opportunity to be engaged in a battle to defeat those terrorist organizations.

The idea that we would walk away--in fact, I heard my colleagues earlier talk about how long we have been there. Does anybody talk about how long terrorism is going to be with us? So the idea that we should set a parameter for our timeframe, knowing that we are engaged in a great battle for the future of our Nation with terrorist organizations that want us dead, seems to be the wrong way to look at this issue. I don't know what the right timeframe is, and I am saddened that we are still there, but it is not a matter of time, it is a matter of accomplishment of the mission of ending terrorist attacks against the United States. Nine-eleven remains fresh in my mind.

So the issue we face is, Does this resolution offered by the Senator from Kentucky put us in a position in which we finally do what we are supposed to do, which, in my view, is authorize, declare war--not necessarily an authorization of use of force, but whatever that mechanism of authorization is, does this resolution, this vote we will take today, does it put us in a position to take advantage of the circumstance in which Congress finally utilizes its authority and accepts its responsibility? I don't know the answer to that question.

We are making progress in Afghanistan. The greatest evidence of that to me was my visit to Bagram, to the hospital, during which I learned that 84 percent of the patients at the hospital are Afghani, not Americans.

I support the statement of strategy by the administration in regard to our efforts in Afghanistan and particularly the need to deal with Pakistan as a sanctuary.

The last thing I would want to do, having just returned from visiting with troops, including many Kansans, is make a decision today that they are no longer supported by Congress.

Going to war is something that, in my view, has been too easy in the United States, and we have had Presidential leadership for a long time that has downplayed the importance of war. We have been told that it will be easy, that oil revenues will pay for the war. It seems as if our political leadership in this country wants the American citizens to believe that we can go to war and that they will not suffer any consequence or participate in any way.

Declaring war and the authorization of use of military force by Congress brings the American people into this, rather than downplaying the significance and sacrifice. It makes certain that others, not just our military men and women and their families, make a sacrifice, that we are all in this together, and would involve Congress making a decision that this endeavor, whatever it is, is worth the potential loss of life by Americans who serve in our military.

These are difficult and challenging but important decisions, and I want to work with my colleagues to find the right solution--not just to walk away from a resolution but to make sure we have in place something that gives the authority to our troops to succeed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain be recognized prior to Senator Corker's speaking time.

Mr. President, I modify my request and ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain and Senator Reed be recognized prior to Senator Corker's speaking time.