Floor Statements

Mr. President, when I watch the news, I can't help but see that the media is showing a kind of picture of Washington that really doesn't exist. The news would have the public believe that there is a lot of dysfunction in the administration, and nothing is getting done. But I can share some examples of how the government has been working to get America back in business.

In my former life, I participated for some 20 years or longer in a free enterprise business. I was making money. I was losing money. I was hiring people, doing what I thought Americans were supposed to be doing. All that time, the major problem I had was the obstruction of the Federal Government. One of the reasons I actually ran in the first place was to try to save the free enterprise system. I never dreamed that we would end up with an administration--as well-meaning as the Obama administration was--that would be putting people out of business.

During the last administration, the Obama administration, new rules were created that had no purpose but to hinder economic growth. In fact, President Obama is the first President since Hoover not to hit a 3-percent GDP growth in any year of his Presidency.

With every industry coming under scrutiny from every regulatory agency, President Obama added more regulations to the Federal Register than any other President in history. Businesses are complying with regulations, costing in the neighborhood of $2 trillion. You have to keep in mind that when you hear the businesses and corporations are paying this, it is not the businesses that are paying it. It is the public--the people who are out there, and they, through increased costs of goods and services or through taxes, are paying it.

I heard an alarming figure the other day that some 65 percent of the people in America--this is a poll that is about a week old--are opposed to any stopping of regulations in corporations. Yet they are the very ones who are paying for this fun they are having.

This administration has tried to do something about all the overregulation, all the rules that the previous administration had put in place. There are two ways you can do this. One is through Executive orders. People know what those are; that is, the President coming along and giving an Executive order that will undo damage that was done by a previous Executive order imposing a new rule on America. That has been taking place.

At the same time, the other way of doing it is through a CRA resolution. Not many people know what a CRA resolution is. A CRA resolution is a Congressional Review Act resolution. It started about 20 years ago and has never been used until this administration. What it does is say that if you have up to 30 Members of the Senate, you can get a CRA resolution against a rule that some administration has put in place in a certain time period. It is the way people who are elected to office, accountable to the people, can get things done and be answerable to the people, as opposed to an unelected bureaucrat who is out there imposing hardships and rules on the public.

Actually, this administration came in, and they passed 14 Congressional Review Act resolutions; that is, 14 in the first few weeks, actually. The savings from repeal of these 14 regulations were estimated to be $3.7 billion in costs and 4.2 million hours of paperwork, the most expensive of which--this is kind of interesting because I introduced a CRA resolution. It happens to be that mine was the first one to pass. So I had the first signing ceremony with our new President Trump during the initial days of his administration.

The rule was imposed by the Obama administration. It was one that would force domestic oil and gas companies to release all of the information they had in formulating their estimates and their bids in competition with maybe China or other countries, and it was putting our domestic oil and gas companies at a competitive disadvantage. This was all part of the Obama war on fossil fuels. Everyone knows that fossil fuels are oil, coal, and gas, and this was an effort to do that. We introduced a resolution repealing that. It was a CRA resolution, and it was successful. We

had our signing ceremony, and that was history.

That is 1 of 45--some Executive orders--and 1 of 14 successful CRA resolutions. In addition to the CRA resolutions, President Trump has signed 45 Executive orders with the goal of reducing redtape and cutting back on harmful administrative redtape.

Thanks to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle for changing the Senate rules because, with their help, President Trump and a Republican-led Senate have been able to confirm one of the most conservative Cabinets in history, and they have been working to implement the President's pro-business, pro-jobs, pro-economic growth policy.

If you want to see the effect that this administration is having, you need only to look at the energy industry. Of course, that is to say nothing about the fact that we now have a great conservative judge. But when you look at the energy industry, it has been under attack for 8 years.

Within weeks after taking office, the Army Corps of Engineers under the Trump administration approved an easement for the Dakota Access Pipeline that had been withheld by the Obama administration because of nothing more than political pressure from the far left.

The next month, the State Department issued a crossborder permit for the Keystone Pipeline. Again, the permit had been withheld purely for political far-left reasons.

Later the same month, the Department of the Interior lifted the coal leasing ban that the Obama administration had placed on Federal land. Federal lands have about 40 percent of the coal production in the United States, so that was just devastating to that industry. It was a killer.

Another notable win for energy came just last week out of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; that is, FERC. FERC was without a forum from February until mid-August, creating a backlog and delaying $50 million of energy infrastructure projects from moving forward. The new forum has quickly gone to work to address that backlog, improving pipelines and power agreements.

However, a decision made last week has clearly sent a message that America's energy sector is open for business again. For years, New York State had been delaying consideration of water certifications that are required for FERC approval to allow construction of several federally approved pipelines.

The Millennium Pipeline, in particular, would take natural gas 9 miles from one pipeline to a natural gas-fired electric plant, providing clean, cheap, natural gas power in New York State. It was delayed and denied certification simply because, again, the radical left doesn't want it.

Last week, FERC took the authority granted to them under the Clean Water Act to override New York State's denial of certification because New York had waived their authority under the law.

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act says that if a State ``refuses to act on a request for a certification within a reasonable time period (which shall not exceed 1 year) after the receipt of such request, the certification requirements . . . shall be waived with respect to such Federal application.''

With environmentalists increasingly urging States like New York, New Jersey, and Virginia to block pipelines by delaying or withholding otherwise valid certifications, these States are interfering with interstate commerce, a role that is clearly within the purview of the Federal Government.

I applaud the administration for the progress they have made and the independent agencies for taking a stand against the gamesmanship of the radical left, environmentalist groups, and those who do their bidding by using loopholes and their official authority to block valid, compliant energy projects from safely transporting cheaper and cleaner energy across State lines.

When the government works with industry, not against it, we start to see companies unleash investments across the country. In fact, the economy has picked up since Trump and his administration have come into office with the economy growing 3 percent in just the second quarter, which is the first full quarter under the administration, and the fastest pace of growth in 2 years, according to the website called CNN Money.

Each nomination, confirmation, or policy directive of President Trump and the Republican-led Congress signals to the business community and American workers that America is open for business again.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to address our energy industry's needs so that private investors can be utilized to deliver American products to American consumers around the world. Just this week, I introduced a bill to address the known bottleneck issues that add unnecessary delays in the FERC permitting process by identifying participating agencies early in the process and providing contract reviews and providing transparency. This is something that is just common sense.

I thank very much Senator King and his staff for working with me and my staff on this legislation, and I hope my colleagues will join us in getting these reforms into law.

I bring this up only because you would never know that this is progress that is being made in the economy through the Trump administration. Somehow that report has yet to get through.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3819, which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2266 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Grassley substitute amendment be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 269, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Executive Calendar No. 349; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, September 28; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Erickson nomination, with the time until the cloture vote equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Madam President, as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, I would like to make a statement for the record regarding an item of special interest inserted into the committee report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 related to the Department of Defense's use of its intellectual property rights of certain medical products.

The committee report includes language that purports to direct the Department of Defense to exercise its rights under the Bayh-Dole Act ``to authorize third parties to use inventions that benefited from DOD funding whenever the price of a drug, vaccine, or other medical technology is higher in the United States'' as compared to prices in foreign countries. I am concerned that the report language is inconsistent with the original intent of Bayh-Dole and could hinder critical medical developments.

Americans, including our men and women in uniform, must have access to affordable healthcare, including prescription drugs and medical technologies. However, I fear the committee report directive in question will slow future innovation, lead to a more complex and burdensome regulatory scheme, and make it less likely that our military personnel will be able to access cutting-edge medicines in the future, while doing nothing meaningful to address healthcare costs. The DOD relies on its partnerships with industry to develop vaccines, drugs, and diagnostics that target unique threats faced by our warfighters during operations in theater. As such, the biopharmaceutical industry plays a critical role in enhancing our military and civilian defenses against biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear threats.

Federal agencies, such as the DOD, already face significant challenges in attracting top drug and vaccine developers as partners to develop lifesaving medical countermeasures necessary to protect the warfighter. These challenges include low procurement quantities, high regulatory risk, complex Federal contracting regulations, and inconsistency in funding, among others. The added risk of diluting or compromising intellectual property protections as a means of price control will not only fail to meet its objective, but will serve as an additional deterrent to private sector development of critical medical capabilities offered by DOD.

Furthermore, companies who partner with the Federal Government rely heavily on the strength and scope of their intellectual property to generate investment to take their technologies to commercialization. The report language invokes the Bayh-Dole Act, the purpose of which is to encourage the prompt commercialization of federally funded patents. Prior to Bayh-Dole, collaborations between private industry and public entities were rare. The act has fostered a delicate balance of collaborations between Federal agencies, public research institutions, and private industry that have resulted in the commercialization of inventions for use by all Americans, especially in the area of medical countermeasures for our servicemen and women.

In the drug development context, Federal funding under the Bayh-Dole Act has facilitated the discovery of 153 marketed drugs and vaccines over the last 30 years. The act included the creation of so-called march-in rights to allow agencies to compel additional licensing if good-faith efforts toward development are not being made. Agencies can also march-in if a licensee cannot produce enough products to meet a national emergency. It is these provisions to which the report language refers and I believe inappropriately expands the statute's reach to include Federal price controls and increases the scope of the government's authority.

Nothing in the Bayh-Dole Act, whether in march-in rights or otherwise, provides a Federal agency the authority to influence the price of a commercialized invention. Regulating the price of commercialized intellectual property was never intended by Congress when passing the Bayh-Dole Act,

as evident by the Senate and House reports. Congress contemplated the use of march-in rights only ``when the invention is not being used.'' Further, Senators Bayh and Dole have subsequently explained that the absence of any reference to reasonable pricing in the statute was intentional. As Senator Bayh--the author of and driving force behind the Bayh-Dole Act--has said: Any attempt to use the Bayh-Dole Act to support price controls is a ``flagrant misrepresent[ation]'' of Congress's purpose in enacting the statute. Consistent with this position, a Federal agency has never invoked the Bayh-Dole Act to interfere with the price of a commercialized invention. I am aware of petitions to both the NIH and the DOD requesting march-in rights be exercised on the basis of pricing, and in all of those cases, the petitions were rejected in accordance with the law.

The committee report language seeks to authorize something that the statute itself does not. I believe the item of special interest does not accurately reflect the current intent of Congress with respect to the Bayh-Dole Act, and I encourage the DOD to continue to rely on the existing interpretation of Bayh-Dole law when addressing these matters.

Mr. President, I want to discuss an amendment, and I am not sure when it will be offered--I understand it will be offered--and I think it is very significant.

First of all, let's keep in mind what this is all about. The NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act. It is one that we know is going to pass. It has passed for 55 consecutive years. If something happened and it didn't pass, the troops wouldn't get hazard pay or flight pay, and it would really be a traumatic thing that would happen. But it is not going to happen. It is going to pass. It is the most important bill that I believe we pass every year. As I said, we have passed it for 55 consecutive years, and it is important that we pass it right away. Sometimes it gets stalled until later in the year, but if it isn't done by the end of December, that is when everything falls apart. So we just don't need to do that, and I believe we have the momentum to go ahead and get it done.

Now, we are facing a threat. I have stood at this podium so many times now to talk about how I look back wistfully at the days of the Cold War when we had two superpowers. We knew what they had. They knew what we had. Mutually shared destruction meant something, but now it is totally different.

We hear that the two biggest threats facing us right now would be North Korea and Iran. I stand on the side that it is North Korea because North Korea is run by someone with a questionable mentality, and they are developing--I have watched them over the years--the capabilities that they now have. I certainly agree that Iran also is a serious threat. But the fact is that our Armed Forces are now in a condition that they have not been in for a long time.

I chair the Subcommittee on Readiness in the Senate, and we had the vice chairs testify before us not too long ago. They testified that we are in worse shape now than we were during the hollow force of the 1970s, right after the Carter administration. Many of us remember that, and I certainly do. Our Armed Forces are smaller than in the days of the hollow force in the 1970s, and readiness in the form of personnel, training, and equipment have been degraded, I think, to a breaking point. All the while, we have witnessed an uptake in the training and operational accidents across the Armed Forces. While the risks posed by the readiness crisis are significant, Congress is already taking steps to correct the shortfalls.

Every amendment considered for the NDAA should focus on increasing readiness across our services. We owe it to

our troops and our Nation to help ensure that levels are acceptable. That is why it is disappointing and dangerous that we are considering an amendment that would authorize a base realignment and closure round, better known to all of us as a BRAC round. We have had five BRAC rounds since 1989, and I am familiar with all of them. I, along with many of my colleagues in the Senate Armed Services Committee, successfully have a provision that would include a prohibition against a BRAC right now. I think it is pretty obvious. Everyone knows what the threat is out there. At least those on the Armed Services Committee do. But they also know that any BRAC round that you do is going to have the effect of costing a lot of money that should be spent on readiness. No matter what a base realignment and closure, or BRAC, is, the amount of money that is spent when you first start is going to be very expensive.

Unfortunately, an amendment is pending that would enable a new BRAC round in 2019, and, at the same time, remove--this is critical--the nonpartisan commission that allows the input of both local defense communities and Congress into the BRAC process.

I will tell my colleagues why that is important. I remember because it was shortly after I was first elected. Prior to 1989, the Defense Department was the agency that made the decisions as to what was going to happen to our various installations around America. It was very, very political. There were rumors or some stories that they would agree for certain considerations to allow someone to continue to operate when they really shouldn't be operating.

Well, the Pentagon claims that a BRAC round would save money and would allow the military to invest that money into critical readiness shortfalls. It is just not true. Before the most recent BRAC round in 2005, we heard these same arguments from the Pentagon, that the BRAC would somehow save money and would allow the military to increase efficiency. With 22 major base closings and 33 realignments--that is what happened in 2005--the round was depicted to save, over a 20-year period, $35 billion, with costs of $21 billion. The reality is far different. The 2005 BRAC round cost taxpayers roughly $35 billion, and it is only expected to save $9.9 billion over the next 20 years.

Now, the other day I went back and looked up just to see what the GAO said about that. Keep in mind that it was a 2005 BRAC round, but the GAO study was actually in 2011, saying: We know what we said at that time; let's see how they performed.

So let me read right out of their report: The ``one-time implementation costs''--that is the cost of putting together a BRAC round--``grew from $21 billion originally estimated by the BRAC Commission in 2005 to about $35 billion.'' In other words, they said it was going to cost $21 billion, and it ended up costing $35 billion. That is an increase of 67 percent. It has been that way with the other rounds too.

Looking at their analysis of the value, it is very important that we understand what they are saying here. The GAO said that ``the 20-year net present value DOD can expect by implementing the 2005 BRAC recommendations has decreased by 72 percent.''

In other words, they were 72 percent off as to what great savings we were going to have in the future by making these closures.

They went on to say that ``the 20-year net present value--that is, the present value of future savings minus the present value of up-front investment costs--of $35.6 billion estimated by the Commission in 2005 for this BRAC round has decreased by 72 percent.'' It cannot be more specific than that, and this is the consistent pattern that we have.

So, clearly, those base closure rounds cost the American taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money up front and take years to recoup their initial investment, if they ever do. In this case, they haven't, and they don't expect to. With the history of previous inconsistencies between expected and actual costs, there is no certainty that any proposed base closures or realignments would be economically viable now or at any time in the future.

Now, we are at a point of uncertainty that makes it irresponsible to expend billions of dollars in downsizing our Armed Forces when we are currently facing some of the most volatile, unpredictable, and dangerous military threats that America has ever seen. Readiness can't wait, and our enemies around the world will not.

We must also consider the possibility that we will soon require the capacity that is presently considered excess if the current military threats materialize in a manner that would encourage expansion of our armed services.

I think that just stands to reason. We know the threats are out there, and we know the problems are more severe than they have ever been in the history of this country. So maybe the current size of our forces would not be adequate. Well, it is a lot cheaper to go ahead and keep something that is already there than it is to tear down something and start all over again.

So, anyway, as to the early years, everybody knows that the certainty is there that it will cost money in the early years. The high cost of a BRAC round would divert resources away from addressing immediate, tangible threats.

Just last week, North Korea tested what is believed to be a hydrogen bomb, its most powerful nuclear weapon tested to date, estimated at nearly seven times as powerful as the bomb detonated over Hiroshima. This came on the heels of North Korea's first successfully tested and more powerful and far-ranging intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM. We are familiar with that test, which began over the summer. Now, if fired on a trajectory, experts believe the ICBMs that North Korea tested could have reached the United States of America.

I can remember talking about this with our intelligence department years ago. At that time, we were saying that they could finally develop a bomb and a delivery system that could reach the United States of America. Well, that may be here today. If not, it is imminent.

A BRAC round now would also shortchange a response to the immediate readiness needs. Over the last 90 days, we have witnessed a spike in accidents across the military services, especially in the Navy and in some of the aviation mishaps. While these accidents are still under investigation--under investigation to determine the cause--it is not hard to correlate them with the readiness decline.

Our forces are smaller than the days of the hollow force in the 1970s. Our equipment is aging. Our base infrastructure requires critical maintenance and upgrades. Our Air Force is short 1,500 pilots, and 1,300 of those are fighter pilots. Only 50 percent of the Air Force squadrons are trained and ready to conduct their assigned missions. The Navy is the smallest and the least ready it has been in years. It currently can only meet about 40 percent of the demand for regional combat commanders. We are talking about the commanders in the field who make that assessment. We can only carry out less than 40 percent of them. More than half of Navy aircraft are grounded because they are awaiting maintenance or lack necessary parts. The Marine Corps' F/A- 18s, known as the Hornets, 62 percent are broken. We don't have that capacity. The Army has said about one-third of their brigade combat teams, one-fourth of their combat aviation brigades, and one-half of their division headquarters are currently ready.

Speaking in January about the Army readiness, then-Vice Chief of Staff of the Army General Allyn said:

What it comes down to . . . we will be too late to need. .

. . Our soldiers will arrive too late, our units will require

too much time to close the manning, training, and equipment

gap . . . the end result is excessive casualties to civilians

and to our forces who are already forward-stationed.

We are talking about lives. We are talking about American lives. That is a sobering assessment, especially when considering the gravity of the threats we face around the world, including, of course, the Korean Peninsula.

The NDAA's first priority has to be to rebuild our force and improve its readiness, which is what we are in the process of doing right now, and we need to get it done. A BRAC round would divert vast resources away from this end for savings we would not see for decades to come, if we ever did--and we

are growing, not shrinking. Now is not the time for a BRAC round.

I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join me in rejecting this amendment. However well-intentioned, now is not the time for a shortsighted BRAC round.

There are still Members--I have talked to Senators who are saying they really believe, and they have been told, that somehow we are going to have more money for readiness if we have a BRAC round. It is exactly the opposite. Again, straight from the GAO, they made the analysis of the 2005 BRAC, and said the 20-year net present value DOD can expect by implementing the 2005 BRAC recommendations has decreased by 72 percent. It always costs a lot more on the front end and saves much less in the long run.

With that, I encourage my colleagues to reject this amendment, if this amendment is indeed offered.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I understand that Senator Van Hollen was going to speak, but since he is not here, I ask unanimous consent to make what remarks I need to in morning business and will yield to him when I am through.

Mr. President, it is interesting to hear the DACA talk. I think one should take a step back and look and ask: Is it really unreasonable to merely say that so long as we will obey the law, we are going to be all right? I think this President did the right thing when he said: All right, Congress. You take a few months and see if you can come up with some answers. That is a good answer. If that is the case, then that is, maybe, what we should do.

Mr. President, what I am really concerned about right now is that we are getting ready to do the National Defense Authorization Act. This is something that we will pass. We have passed it now for 55 consecutive years, and it is going to be passed this time. It is important because one of the primary constitutional responsibilities we have is to provide for the common defense of our great Nation, and recent worldwide events highlight the urgency of this need.

I have spoken numerous times about the grave threat that is posed by North Korea and warned that it would not be long before North Korea could demonstrate the capability of firing an intercontinental ballistic missile that would be capable of reaching the United States. It is not just my saying it; others are saying it. We have a lot of very courageous individuals who have come forth from the military. I am not used to this. I have been here for 23 years; yet I have not seen them come forth and just be clear about the threat that is facing this country.

In April, ADM Harry Harris, the Pacific Command commander testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee that it is clearly a matter of when and not if that Korea would develop the capability to strike the United States of America. This has never happened before. In May, Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, who is the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified. Actually, he testified before the subcommittee that I chair. He said:

Let me be clear on this point. If left on its current

trajectory, the regime will ultimately succeed in fielding a

nuclear-armed missile capable of threatening the United

States homeland.

We have talked about this being the most threatened position that we have been in in the history of this country. I have often referred to the good old days of the Cold War when we had two superpowers. We knew what they had, and they knew what we had. It was predictable, but it is not predictable anymore. You have countries like Yemen, countries like Iran, countries like North Korea that are developing these capabilities that they now have. It is within reach.

Since then, unfortunately, I have been proven to be correct as the North Korea regime continues to demonstrate its dire threat facing us. On July 4, North Korea successfully launched its first ICBM. It was the first time that they had done it. If fired on a standard trajectory, the missile could have ranged Alaska. Some experts say that it could have gone even deeper into the continental United States.

In light of that test, the Defense Intelligence Agency updated its assessment of the timeline by which North Korea will be able to reliably range U.S. cities--we are talking about Washington, DC--with nuclear missiles as early as the end of next year or even earlier. This past Sunday, September 3, North Korea tested what is believed to be a hydrogen bomb, its most powerful nuclear weapon to date--almost seven times as powerful as the bomb that was detonated over Hiroshima. North Korean media immediately stated that the nuclear test was to determine the ``accuracy and credibility'' of its ``hydrogen bomb to be placed at the payload of an ICBM.''

It does not get any more direct than that. Even if delivered by a relatively

inaccurate ICBM--because they are relatively inaccurate--a nuclear device as powerful as the one that was tested Sunday could devastate its target. Just think about that--7 to 10 times stronger than the one that wiped out Hiroshima. It is important to remember that all of this power is being wielded by an erratic despot, Kim Jong Un.

North Korea's official newspaper relayed the threat of a preemptive strike in April. This is a quote from their newspaper: ``[It would] completely and immediately wipe out not only U.S. imperialists' invasion forces in South Korea and its surrounding areas but the U.S. mainland and reduce them to ashes.'' This is a newspaper that is behind this leader over there, and it has made this threat to the United States. We have never experienced anything like this in this country before. Now that we are getting into the NDAA this year, we have to keep this grave threat foremost in our minds, and we are doing it.

I have had numerous conversations with the chairman of our committee, and we are going to make these commitments. We have serious readiness deficits that are going to have to be addressed right away. Over the last 90 days, a spike in accidents across the military services has occurred. I had the CNO of the Navy and the Secretary of the Navy in my office a few minutes ago, and we talked about how they are addressing this thing. It is hard to correlate these accidents with a readiness decline as a result of numerous continuing resolutions and sequestration. It is just another surprise that we have not had before.

Our forces are now smaller than the days of the hollow force. Some of us remember that was back after the Carter administration. It was when our own forces declared that it was a hollow force of the seventies. Yet we had a hearing just the other day, and we had some of the top people in. In fact, it was the vice chiefs of all of the services, and they agreed that our situation right now is worse than it was in the days of the hollow force.

Our Air Force is short 1,500 pilots, and 1,300 of those are fighter pilots. I believe 50 percent of our Air Force squadrons are trained and ready to conduct all of their assigned missions.

The Navy is the smallest and least ready it has been in years. Currently, it can only meet about 40 percent of the demand from regional combatant commanders. More than half of the Navy's aircraft are grounded because they are awaiting maintenance or lack the necessary spare parts.

The Marine Corps is struggling to keep their aging F/A-18 Hornets airworthy. I think the last I heard is that 62 percent of them were not able to address that readiness.

The Army has said that only about one-third of its brigade combat teams, one-fourth of their combat aviation brigades, and one-half of their division headquarters are currently ready. That is a sobering assessment, and we are again in the most threatened position we have been in as a nation.

The bill that we have presented out of the Armed Services Committee goes a long way toward closing these readiness gaps. Our bill increases end strength and boosts funding for equipment, operations, maintenance, military construction, and it includes a 2.1-percent pay increase for our troops. It also addresses many requirements for the services and combatant commander's unfunded priority lists.

I am also pleased that the Senate Armed Services Committee's NDAA prohibits a Base Realignment and Closure round this year. It is called a BRAC round, which is when they go through and make an evaluation as to what our capabilities are, what changes should be made, and what bases should be closed--decisions like that. The problem with that is if you do this when we have gone through a period of disarmament, as some have called it--and we are in a position right now when we need every nickel that we can have for the military. One thing that is always a certainty is that when you go through a BRAC round, it always costs money for the first few years, and we cannot afford to do it right now.

Our NDAA also fully funds Missile Defense Agency unfunded priorities, which is important considering that, since 2006, the Missile Defense Agency's budget has fallen more than 23 percent. Every amendment that we consider in our NDAA this year should be equally focused on increasing readiness across the Services.

I will wrap up with a quote from General Milley, the Chief of Staff of the Army. This quote is one that we should keep in mind throughout the NDAA process. By the way, I admire our uniforms for coming forth and talking about the dilemma that we are in because it is very difficult for them to do that.

General Milley said it best when it comes to funding our military:

The only thing more expensive than deterrence is actually

fighting a war, and the only thing more expensive than

fighting a war is fighting one and losing one. . . . We're

expensive. We recognize that. But the bottom line is, it's an

investment that is worth every nickel.

It is.

I apologize to my friend.

I suggest that this is probably the most significant bill coming up this year, and I think Senator McCain said that we are going to be starting on it next week. It has been the most important bill of the year for the last 55 years, and it will continue to be this year.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I would say only that this is the one thing that we agree on. We disagree on a lot of things in this Chamber, but this is one that we have to agree on and do what is necessary to do our job.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a great leader and an exceptional Army officer, LTG Federick B. ``Ben'' Hodges who is currently serving as the commanding general of U.S. Army Europe in Wiesbaden, Germany, as he prepares for his transition and retirement from Active Duty.

LTG Ben Hodges has served our Army and our Nation for more than 35 years. He has been a true professional and a dedicated soldier, leader, and officer. Throughout his career, he has commanded our great soldiers at many levels, he has deployed to combat numerous times in defense of the Nation, and he has been assigned the most critical positions in our Army. Lieutenant General Hodges continues to provide outstanding leadership, advice, and sound professional judgment on numerous critical issues of enduring importance to the Army, Congress, and this Nation.

A native of Quincy, FL, Lieutenant General Hodges graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in May 1980 and was commissioned as a second lieutenant of infantry. After his first assignment in an infantry unit in Germany, he commanded infantry units at the company, battalion, and brigade levels in the 101st Airborne Division and in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom during the initial invasion of Iraq as Bastogne 6, leading the 327th Infantry Regiment.

Throughout his magnificent career, Lieutenant General Hodges has served in a variety of important positions within the U S Army, proving over and over again his exceptional leadership and staff skills. These positions include service as a tactics Instructor at the Infantry school, aide-de-camp to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, and service as both the deputy chief and then chief of legislative, liaison for the U.S. Army in Washington, D.C.

Lieutenant General Hodges' assignments as a general officer include deputy commander for stability, Regional Command-South, International Security Assistance Force supporting Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan from August 2009 until October 2010. Before arriving in Germany, Lieutenant General Hodges also held a leadership position at NATO, serving as the first commander of Allied Land Command, Izmir, Turkey, from November 2012 to October 2014.

For the past 3 years, Lieutenant General Hodges has been the commanding general of United States U.S. Army Europe. During this period of extraordinary change and challenge in Europe's security environment, Lieutenant General Hodges has improved relationships with NATO allies and European partners. Through his leadership, Lieutenant General Hodges has successfully led his command through some of the most complex issues our Army has faced in recent years with unparalleled results. While increasing the transparency of Army operations within Europe, Lieutenant General Hodges has led his command through the rapid growth in the frequency and complexity of multinational training exercises, thus increasing interoperability and strengthening NATO's commitment to deter potential aggression. The foundations set by Lieutenant General Hodges will allow NATO and our Army to meet every mission requirement in Europe.

On behalf of Congress and the United States of America, I thank LTG Ben Hodges, his wife, Holly, and their entire family for their continued commitment, sacrifice, and contribution to this great Nation. I join my colleagues in wishing him future success in all aspects of life and I am sure that many so1diers will continue to emulate him as a role model for service, sacrifice, and leadership.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized in morning business for as much time as I shall consume.

Mr. President, there seems to be some confusion. I will take whatever time you designate is left. I wanted to talk longer.

The things the Senator from South Carolina was talking about are pretty amazing. I look at my State of Oklahoma. Did you know our premiums in the State of Oklahoma under ObamaCare have tripled? They have gone up 201 percent.

When you look and you see the options that are out there, what really disturbs me--I understand one big difference between Democrats and Republicans is Democrats are disciplined, Republicans aren't, so they are all voting against any kind of a change. I guess they all love ObamaCare.

I can assure you, though, if you look at the charts the Senator from South Carolina was showing, you would wonder why in the world they would all be gathering around when they would dramatically benefit by taking one of the alternatives to ObamaCare.

I didn't come down to talk about that, but I have to say, from a State where our premiums have gone up--tripled--you stop and you ask: What is this going to look like when we get the new bill done?

We don't know exactly what it is going to look like. It is going to have the individual mandates done away with. It is going to have the taxes reduced. It is going to have block grants going to the States.

Look at my State of Oklahoma. That will increase the amount of money that will be coming in, with less taxes, by 200 percent. I dare say, there are a lot of Democrats who would find that in the same situation.

One last note about that, as I go back and I work around the State, I find there are a lot of people who are saying: I don't like this alternative.

I would only say, not just in Oklahoma but anywhere in the Nation, if you oppose what is going to be the alternative, what you are saying is, you would rather have ObamaCare.

Commending Attorney General Sessions

Mr. President, actually, I came to the floor for a different reason. It is probably the most awkward situation I have been in before. Since they cut me down to 8\1/2\ minutes, I will have to come back to the floor and embellish a little bit more. I am in an awkward situation. First of all, I believe that we have a President in President Trump who is doing a great job.

I look around and I see what is happening to us. We are now a leader in the free world again. All kinds of things have happened that are very good. Yet I have to say the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, if I could single out three people in the U.S. Senate whom I respect more, he would be among those.

I am fortunate enough to have known him since the middle eighties, back during the Reagan administration. I knew him very well when he was elected the first time in 1996. Here is a guy who is an outstanding guy, who does things, gets things done. Look at his accomplishments as Attorney General. In that short period of time, what he has done is, he has been working to crack down on immigration. He has performed some real miracles there, and he has worked on protecting law enforcement. In fact, a law enforcement group came out and singled him out as the most prominent and most popular Attorney General we have had.

Look what he has done in his time, what he has introduced. Child abuse--he did the Child Abuse Act. He did it himself. Nobody else helped him. His quote was: ``There is no higher duty than protecting our Nation's children.'' The Prison Rape Elimination Act, the first Federal law dealing with sexual assault on prisoners. A lot of those are young prisoners. We all know the stories. He is the guy who passed that, and nobody else was in on that deal--just him. Forensic sciences, he has been able to be a champion there.

I would have to say that the major thing he did during the time in his early years was that he was the one who was standing up against segregation. He was the one who single-handedly put himself in a situation where he was taking on the bad guys, and he was desegregating the schools in Alabama. He was key to the prosecution of the Klansmen for abducting and killing a Black teenager. We all remember that. Who was that? Who did that? That was Jeff Sessions. So he gets things done. He was the one who was responsible for bankrupting the Klan in his State of Alabama. Here is a guy who has the sensitivity. I have never known a person I could respect more. That is what bothers me.

I think we have a President who is doing a good job, and the only area where I disagree with him--he has this fight going with Jeff Sessions.

Let me just say this: There is no one I hold in higher regard. He is about the most knowledgeable person, compassionate person, and honorable person we could have in that job.

When there is more time on the schedule, I will come back and elaborate a little bit more on my hero Jeff Sessions and how he ought to remain in that office and do a great job for the United States.

With that, I will comply with the request and yield my time.