Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. This legislation is the culmination of months of bipartisan work. I want to thank my friend, the Senator from Rhode Island, as well as our colleagues in the House of Representatives, Mac Thornberry and Adam Smith, and the

dozens of members who served on the conference committee for their hard work and collaboration during this process. Together, we worked hard to negotiate the differences between the House and Senate versions of this bill, and the result is a piece of legislation that should make all Senators--and all Americans--proud.

The fundamental purpose of the National Defense Authorization Act is to provide our Armed Forces with the resources, training, and equipment they need to keep us safe. We should consider this our highest duty and our greatest honor, to keep faith with the brave Americans who serve and sacrifice on our behalf.

To do that, the NDAA authorizes funding, advances policies, and requires reforms that will support our men and women in uniform, but before I discuss the many laudable aspects of this legislation, let me lament for a moment the developments that have unfolded in recent days and delayed this important legislation.

This delay concerns a provision in the defense bill to get our military emergency approval to use new lifesaving medicines on the battlefield. This provision was included in the original Senate version of this legislation that has been publicly available for several months, and it was included in this conference report with strong bipartisan and bicameral support. For years, the Department of Defense has struggled in vain to gain approval by the Food and Drug Administration for certain vital medical products, such as freeze-dried plasma, for use by our troops on the battlefield. Because the FDA failed to act time and again, the Senate Armed Services Committee did, and we received strong support from our House colleagues.

It is outrageous that the National Defense Authorization Act has been held hostage by the desire to pass a separate piece of legislation to address this issue differently than this conference report. That separate legislation was the product of a compromise between the DOD and the FDA, to which neither the Senator from Rhode Island nor I was a party. Our preferred solution remains our original one.

Yesterday, the Senator from Rhode Island and I received a letter from the FDA Commissioner, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, expressing his personal commitment to approve the use of freeze-dried plasma for battlefield use by our troops. He has also pledged to establish a new process for expedited consideration of the DOD's future emergency medical requests. This did not happen by accident. It happened because we acted and because we exposed the unacceptable ways in which the FDA has been failing our men and women in uniform for far too long.

Dr. Gottlieb was only confirmed as FDA Commissioner in May, and we intend to hold him fully accountable for making good on his commitment, including through continued oversight by the Senate Armed Services Committee. However, if we are not satisfied that this new DOD-FDA compromise has fixed the problem, the Senate Armed Services Committee will take action through the NDAA next year. I know that the chairman and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee have expressed that same commitment. We owe nothing less to our men and women in uniform, who deserve our help in saving lives on the battlefield.

Ultimately, that is the goal of every provision of the National Defense Authorization Act--to protect our brave servicemembers, here at home and around the world. The NDAA authorizes funding to rebuild our military and allow the Defense Department to embark on an ambitious program of modernization that is desperately needed and long overdue. The NDAA authorizes the acquisition of ships, aircraft, and equipment above and beyond the administration's request. It provides funding for an increase in end strength across all services, laying the groundwork for a total force, ready and capable of rising to the challenges of a world where threats are on the rise.

The NDAA builds on the reforms this Congress has passed in recent years, continuing efforts to reorganize the Department of Defense, spur innovation in defense technology, and improve acquisition and business operations to strengthen accountability and streamline the process of getting our warfighters what they need to succeed. It prioritizes accountability from the Department and demands the best use of every taxpayer dollar.

This legislation also authorizes funding for our missile defense systems to protect against rising threats. It makes important efforts to correct the dangerous lack of an effective strategy and policy for the information domain, including cyber, space, and electronic warfare.

The NDAA authorizes a 2.4 percent pay raise for our troops, which is the largest in many years, and it includes several provisions to improve quality of life for our men and women in uniform. In particular, the legislation continues committee's efforts to protect our servicemembers from sexual assault and sexual harassment. There is more work to be done, and the committee will continue to conduct oversight and hold hearings to address these important issues.

In total, the National Defense Authorization Act supports a defense budget of $700 billion for fiscal year 2018. This exceeds the administration's request by $26 billion. It also exceeds the defense spending caps in the Budget Control Act by $85 billion.

Earlier this week, 356 Members of the House of Representatives voted in favor of this spending level. This afternoon, an overwhelming majority of this body will do the same. Let this serve as a reminder of the troubling state of our military today and an acknowledgement that the Budget Control Act-level of defense spending is insufficient and unacceptable.

My friends, for too long, our Nation has asked our men and women in uniform to do too much with far too little. Our military's job is hard enough, but we are making it harder through continuing resolutions, unpredictable funding, and arbitrary spending caps that were put into law 6 years ago--before the rise of ISIS, before the current crisis with North Korea, before Russia's return to aggression on the world stage, and before so many other dangerous developments.

We have been warned that we cannot go on like this. Earlier this year, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, warned us, ``In just a few years if we don't change the trajectory, we will lose our qualitative and our quantitative competitive advantage, [and] the consequences will be profound.'' Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis also warned us, saying, ``We are no longer managing risk; we are now gambling.''

We are gambling with risk, and we are gambling with lives. Today more of our men and women in uniform are being killed in totally avoidable training accidents and routine operations than by our enemies in combat.

My friends, it doesn't have to be this way. The NDAA shows us what we could do with an adequate level of defense spending, what we could provide for our men and women in uniform, but this legislation is only part of the solution. As of yet, we still have no path to actually appropriate the money that we are about to authorize. That requires a bipartisan agreement to adjust the spending caps in the Budget Control Act.

As we join our colleagues in the House in voting to support $700 billion for defense, let this serve as a guidepost for our leaders in Congress and the White House as they negotiate a budget deal. This is the spending level that an overwhelming majority of both the House and the Senate believes is necessary to meet current threats and to keep faith with our men and women in uniform. After we vote to authorize these vital, additional resources for our military, we must all demand a bipartisan agreement so that we can appropriate those resources.

This will require hard work and tough choices, and it will demand that we have the courage of our convictions, but in the end, this will require much less of us than what we ask of from our men and women in uniform. As they so dutifully sacrifice for us every day, let us do our part and fulfill our duties to them and to the Nation they serve.

Mr. LEAHY Mr. President, the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, while laudable in its goals, does not comport with reality. At roughly $700 billion, the proposed base funding in this bill is $85 billion above budget caps that are set in law for Fiscal Year 2018 in the Budget Control

Act, BCA, and $31 billion above the administration's budget request. If the authorized funding level were to be appropriated, without changing the caps, it would trigger a 12-percent across-the-board sequester of Defense programs to bring spending levels back to the Fiscal Year 2018 levels contained in the Budget Control Act. A sequester of this size would hit us in readiness. It would hamper our day-to-day operations and maintenance. It would hurt our troops. Our military leaders do not support such a sequester.

If we really want to support our military and the men and women in uniform, we must immediately reach a bipartisan budget deal to lift the artificial and unrealistically low budget caps that were set in law in 2011. It is hard to get every Member of this Chamber to agree on anything, but on this, we can agree: Sequester has had a negative impact on our country that will impact a generation. We need to have an honest conversation about what the needs of our country are, both in military and domestic spending, and draft our spending bills accordingly.

I do appreciate the work that Senator McCain and Senator Reed have put into this massive legislation. While my concerns with the funding levels authorized in this bill prevent me from supporting it, I do believe it reflects a strong commitment to the programs and policies that support our service members and their families. That must always be our goal.

I am pleased that the conferenced bill maintains support for medical research that matter so much to our servicemembers and to all Americans who benefit from the lifesaving results made possible through these programs. I am also grateful for the inclusion of language I authored that would pave the way for piloting a preventative mental health program for our National Guard and Reserve. Like physical health, we know that, with particular training and mental preparation, a person can be more resilient mentally when faced with challenges, and building that readiness is necessary to maintain the all-volunteer force. Progress is already being made with shifting to a preventative model in the Special Forces community. I hope to soon see similar progress in developing models for the members of our Guard and Reserve.

This final bill also includes several amendments I proposed to make sure U.S. efforts, especially in Afghanistan, are consistent with U.S. values. These include a provision aimed at improving the way the Departments of Defense and State provide human rights training to partner forces, and a requirement to establish a plan on how to improve our ability to help foreign governments protect civilians. The final bill also authorizes establishment of a position in the Department of Defense to oversee its implementation of and coordination with the Department of State on the Leahy law for human rights vetting for Afghan security forces.

In 3 weeks and 1 day, the current resolution funding our government will expire; yet, instead of sitting down with Democrats to work together, just as we did earlier this year to enact the fiscal year 2017 omnibus spending bill, to find a path forward to raise the budget caps and fund our government for the rest of the fiscal year, Republicans are focused on a tax cut bill that will add $1.5 trillion to the debt. Instead of acting responsibly and in the greatest traditions of the Senate, the majority is marching towards another partisan fight on the floor on a deeply flawed tax bill that will impact every corner of our economy.

Let's get to work for the American people. For months, have been calling for a bipartisan budget deal to lift the caps on both sides for both defense and nondefense programs based on parity. It is time to complete those negotiations. We owe it to the men and women who serve. We owe it to the American people.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the nomination of Dr. Mark Esper to be Secretary of the Army.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of Dr. Mark Esper to be Secretary of the Army. Perhaps more than any other service, our Army is experiencing the strain of 16 years of continuous conflict. From our troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq to recent headlines about the tragic loss of four soldiers in Niger, there are constant reminders that we remain a nation at war. And with rising threats around the world, the operational tempo is not slowing down.

We owe our young men and women in uniform leadership that fits their service. I am confident that Dr. Esper will provide our Army with that leadership. His record of service in the Army, in the Pentagon, and on Capitol Hill provides the foundation for the leadership our soldiers deserve. I am also confident that he will call upon his experience in the private sector to bring a reform mindset to the many challenges facing our Army, such as the readiness crisis and the urgent gaps in capabilities and modernization.

Dr. Esper began his career as an Infantry officer in the 101st Airborne Division, serving with distinction in the first Gulf war. He later served on active duty in Europe, and on the Army staff in Washington, DC, before transitioning to the National Guard and retiring after 21 years of service. He was an Airborne Ranger and recipient of the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star, and Meritorious Service Medals, among other awards and qualifications.

Dr. Esper also worked national security issues on Capitol Hill with many of my colleagues here. He was a professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Armed Services Committee. Later, he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense.

I will not hold it against him that he is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He also holds degrees from Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and George Washington University.

Our soldiers continue to prove their commitment, courage, skill, and determination. In return, we owe them the same kind of leadership. I believe Dr. Esper will provide that leadership.

I am proud to support Dr. Esper's nomination, and I ask my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the nomination of Steven Bradbury to be the general counsel of the Department of Transportation. I must say to my colleagues, of the years that I have been here, I never thought that we would be considering the nomination of a person who supported the commission of what the Geneva Convention says are war crimes. That is a serious, serious issue. And the Constitution charges the Senate to give its advice and consent to senior executive branch nominations as a check against the appointment of people to an important government position who, because of one failure or another, should not be entrusted with the interests of the American people. I do not believe that Mr. Bradbury deserves that public trust, and I will oppose his nomination. I am astonished that we are here, considering the nomination of a person who is in violation of the Geneva Convention, the rules of war to which the United States of America is signatory.

Some of us remember that Mr. Bradbury served as the acting head of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel from 2005 to 2009. During this time, he authored a few of what have become to be known infamously as the torture memos, which provided the legal justifications for 13 types of enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the CIA against detainees held by the United States under law of war authorities.

My dear friends and colleagues, the term ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' is a euphemism. These memos provided a legal framework for the use of methods that include waterboarding, which is a mock execution and an exquisite form of torture in which the victim suffers the terrible sensation of drowning. In discussing this practice, we are speaking of an interrogation technique that dates from the Spanish Inquisition and has been a prosecutable offense for over a century. It is among the crimes for which Japanese war criminals were tried and hanged following World War II and was employed by the infamous Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. I repeat. The Japanese war criminals were tried and hanged following World War II for--guess what--waterboarding. Of course, the Khmer Rouge, whom we all know about, was also one of those.

I must say to my colleagues that in the years I have been here in the U.S. Senate, I never believed that I would be voting against an individual who justified the practice of torture. All you have to do is read the Geneva Conventions, to which the United States of America is signatory, and you will see that Mr. Bradbury's memos, which basically justified torture, were in direct contravention.

The memos of which Mr. Bradbury was the author provided the justifications for the inhumane interrogation of detainees by using methods such as forced nudity and humiliation, facial and abdominal slapping, dietary manipulation, stress positions, cramped confinement, striking, and more than 48 hours of sleep deprivation. I would challenge Mr. Bradbury to go through 48 hours of sleep deprivation before he signs off on another memo. Worse, the legal justifications for these techniques were interpreted to permit their use simultaneously, over long periods of time, which constituted what I and many others who are familiar with these techniques believe are torture--torture inflicted by the representatives of a Nation founded on the ideal that all people are born with equal dignity and that even enemies who scorn our ideals, once they are our prisoners, are to be spared cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

The memos authored, in part, by Mr. Bradbury justified the use of these techniques under article 16 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and declared them not in contravention to article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits ``outrages upon personal dignity''--those are the Geneva Conventions to which the United States is signatory--and violence to a life of a person. Most people, including, I am sure, Mr. Bradbury, have never been tightly bound, made to remain in a stress position, and deprived of sleep for 48 hours. Let me assure my colleagues that anyone who has suffered such treatment will know that he has been tortured.

The two main memos that Mr. Bradbury wrote and signed were entitled ``Application of United States Obligations Under Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture to Certain Techniques that May Be Used in the Interrogation of High Value al Qaeda Detainees'' and ``Application of the War Crimes Act, the Detainee Treatment Act, and Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to Certain Techniques that May Be Used by the CIA in the Interrogation of High Value al Qaeda Detainees.''

In the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's study of detention and interrogation program, CIA leadership and interrogators frequently cited these two Bradbury memos as the legal justification that permitted them to use enhanced interrogation techniques. These techniques amounted to de facto torture. Put simply, Mr. Bradbury's memos were permission slips for torture. I repeat to my colleagues who are about to vote for him that his memos were permission slips for torture.

I wonder, of someone who is responsible for what he justifies, how he sleeps. I wonder how he gets rest. Doesn't the face of that person who has been deprived of sleep for 48 hours ever pop into his mind?

I have long said that I understand the reasons that governed the decision to approve these interrogation methods, and I know that those who approved them and those who employed them in the interrogation of captured terrorists were dedicated to protecting the American people from harm. I know that they were determined to keep faith with the victims of terrorism and prove to our enemies that the United States would pursue justice relentlessly and successfully no matter how long it took. I know that their responsibilities were grave and urgent and that the strain of their duty was considerable. I admire their dedication and love of country, but I argued then and I argue now that it was wrong to use these methods, that it undermined our security interests, and that it contradicted the ideals that define us and which we have sacrificed so much to defend.

While Mr. Bradbury has justified his work on these torture memos as the duty of a lawyer representing his client, the Commander in Chief of the United States, I believe that he had a higher duty, as do all who serve this country, to defend our most cherished ideals from wholesale violation in the name of self-defense. Leave aside the fact that, as intelligence-gathering tools, torture is mostly useless and has been proven to be so by the record assembled by the Intelligence Committee. We have led by example and sacrificed blood and treasure to advance our ideals around the world only to undermine our good reputation in a crucible in which we allowed fears to get the better of our decency.

While it is true, as Mr. Bradbury and his supporters claim, that the memos issued under his name improved upon the sloppy and more expansive legal work done by his predecessors, I do not think that that absolves Mr. Bradbury of his role in this dark chapter of American history. Indeed, a more meticulous justification for torture is still a justification for torture--and, arguably, a more pernicious one.

Let's not pretend that there was no direct connection between the legal work done by Mr. Bradbury and the abuses that followed. The memos that bear his name made it possible for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--a monster and a murderer, to be sure, but a detainee held in U.S. custody under the laws of armed conflict--to be waterboarded 183 times. I repeat. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times. This technique was used so gratuitously that even those applying it eventually came to believe that there was no reason to continue. They were ordered to do so anyway.

The memos also made it possible for Abu Zubaydah, an alleged al-Qaida operative, to be subjected to waterboarding two to four times a day, rendering him so distressed that he was unable to speak. The damaging effects of waterboarding cannot be overstated. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on torture, Zubaydah's waterboarding sessions ``resulted in immediate fluid intake and involuntary leg, chest and arm spasms'' and hysterical pleas. In at least one session, ``Zubaydah became completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth,'' and he required medical intervention.

The memos that bear Mr. Bradbury's name also made it possible for a Libyan detainee and his wife to be rendered to a foreign country where the woman was bound and gagged, while being several months pregnant, and photographed naked as several American intelligence officers watched.

I wonder what our average citizens would think when we tell them that an agent of the American Government took a woman who was several months pregnant and bound, gagged, and photographed her naked as several American intelligence officers watched. I am told that that picture still exists somewhere in the archives that has recorded this shameful period in our history.

In voting against Mr. Bradbury's nomination, as I also voted last week for similar reasons against Mr. Steven Engel's nomination to head the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, I am making it clear that I will not support any nominee who justified the use of torture by Americans. The laws of war were carefully created to be precise and technical in nature but also to leave room for interpretation, even at the risk of abuse by the executive branch. This makes the duty of government lawyers all the more significant. They must serve as guardians of our ideals and our obligations under international law. They are the safeguards and checks on the conscience of our government, and I cannot in good faith vote to confirm lawyers who have fallen short in this awesome responsibility.

I will cast my vote against Mr. Bradbury, not because I believe him to be unpatriotic or malevolent but because I believe that what is at stake in this confirmation vote, much as what we stand to gain or lose in the war we are still fighting transcends the immediate matter before us. Ultimately, this is not about Mr. Bradbury; this is not about terrorists. This is about us--who we are and who we will be in the future.

This is about what we lose when, by official policy or official neglect, we allow, confuse, or encourage those who fight this war for us to forget that best sense of ourselves. This is our greatest strength: When we fight to defend our security, we also fight for an idea--not a tribe, not a land, not a King, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights.

It is indispensable to our success in this war that those we ask to fight it know that in the discharge of their responsibilities to our country, they are expected never to forget that they are Americans and the defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should be governed and conduct their relations with others, even our enemies.

Those of us who have given them this enormous duty are obliged by our history and the many terrible sacrifices that have been made in our defense to make clear to them that they need not risk our country's honor to prevail and that they are always, always, always Americans-- and different, stronger, and better than those who would destroy us.

Mr. Bradbury's work many years ago did a disservice to our Nation and its defenders. I cannot in good conscience give him my trust to serve us again.

I am confident, because of the way this system works, that Mr. Bradbury will be confirmed, probably. This is a dark, dark chapter in the history of the United States Senate. We are legitimizing offenses against the code of the Geneva Conventions. We are harming the commitment that our forefathers made that we are all created equal. Unfortunately, we have now betrayed that sacred trust.

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

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

Mr. President, in recent months, the United States and coalition forces have achieved major gains against Iraq and Syria. Building upon the retaking of Mosul in July, U.S. coalition partners have liberated ISIS's former capital of Raqqa in Syria, the pocket of Hawija in northern Iraq, and, just days ago, the border town of al-Qaim in western Iraq. The so-called caliphate that terrorists claimed would overrun the Middle East is now a shadow of its former self--a shrinking swathe on a map once defined by an open reign of terror.

Unfortunately, however, our challenges in the region remain daunting despite these hard-fought tactical victories. Our relentless focus on destroying ISIS, which is, of course, essential, has obscured a troubling reality: The United States lacks a clear comprehensive strategy that addresses the Middle East in all of its complexity.

This is part of the unfortunate legacy the Obama administration left for its successor, but nearly 1 year into the Trump administration, we lack clarity on essential questions about our Nation's role, and we are left to observe as bystanders the intensifying symptoms of a collapsing regional order. While in some cases we are bystanders who take action, we do so with unclear and often unstated objectives.

The United States has committed to the sale of over $100 billion of weapons to Saudi Arabia. We have announced an outline of strategy to counter Iran while providing only minimal detail. We remain conspicuously silent on the future of our role in Iraq and Syria beyond eliminating ISIS, as the Assad regime and its partners consolidate power.

Our power and influence is diminishing in the Middle East as a result of our lack of direction, and the vacuum has been filled by forces working contrary to American interests. Consider the events that have swept the region in recent months.

In Iraq, Iranian forces are working to sow discord as we recently saw in Kirkuk, where the presence of the Quds Force commander, Qassem Soleimani, exacerbated tensions among the Kurds and the government in Baghdad. Iranian-backed militias continue to gain power and aim to turn next year's election into a setback that drives American influence out of Iraq. Meanwhile, the scourge of ISIS remains despite recent military successes. The terrorist attack last week in Manhattan shows its persistent appeal. Its rise in the wake of U.S. withdrawal years ago demonstrates the danger of leaving before winning the peace.

Across the border in Syria, the Assad regime, backed by Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and an array of militias, has retaken most of the country, including many eastern areas that are strategically important. The consequences of the resulting humanitarian crisis have spilled beyond its border for years, destabilizing nations far beyond Syria and paving the way for radicalization. Forces that are hostile to both our interests and our values are shaping the future on the ground while we remain silent, focused on the immediate defeat of ISIS.

I want to emphasize, we want to defeat ISIS. We are defeating ISIS, but that is not our only goal in the Middle East.

On Saturday, the Lebanese Prime Minister, Mr. Hariri, resigned, claiming that he faced death threats from Iran, leaving the United States with one less valuable partner in a divided government in which Hezbollah plays a major role. I happen to have become friends with Mr. Hariri over the years. He is a good, pro-democratic, outstanding individual who basically was forced out of office.

A web of Iranian proxies and allies are spreading from the Levant to the Arabian Peninsula, threatening stability, freedom of navigation, and the

territory of our partners and allies, including with advanced conventional weapons. Iran itself continues to menace its neighbors, use its sanctions relief windfall to harmful ends, test ballistic missiles, and spread weapons throughout the region.

According to our allies and partners, just days ago, Houthi rebels in Yemen launched an Iranian-provided missile at the airport in Riyadh. Meanwhile, our Arab allies are embroiled in infighting and diplomatic disputes that weaken regional cooperation and coalition efforts in the face of these pressing threats.

Saudi Arabia itself is in the midst of monumental change. The recent appointment of a new Crown Prince, the arrest over the weekend of a number of prominent Saudi citizens, and the Kingdom's ongoing war in Yemen, which has spawned a humanitarian crisis of its own, indicate a forcefulness that promises progress but also raises concern about internal stability and regional conflict. Ultimately, it could serve to strengthen Saudi rivals.

In Turkey, President Erdogan continues to consolidate power, abuse human rights and the rule of law, and stifle democracy, while growing closer to Russia and straining the relationship with NATO. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin's Russia casts a long shadow throughout the region as it reestablishes itself as a power broker hostile to American interests and wholly unconcerned about human rights.

These challenges are daunting, confusing, and complex, borne of years of neglect, punctuated by crises and aggravated by weeks filled with the events of decades.

The questions a comprehensive strategy must address are formidable: What are our political and military objectives in the region? How should we prioritize our pursuit of objectives given the numerous regional challenges, and how should we measure our success? What roles and responsibilities should our allies and partners play, and what support will they need to do so? What should be the size, roles, missions, and capabilities of U.S. forces in the region, whether in Iraq, Turkey, the Persian Gulf, or elsewhere? How will the United States facilitate humanitarian relief, stabilization, reconstruction, and political reconciliation where possible?

These questions--many of which we require the President and Department of Defense to answer in the National Defense Authorization Act--are not academic.

The United States is not involved in the Middle East because we labor under the illusion that our presence will solve every problem but because the stability of the region is vital to our national interests and international security alike. Middle Eastern instability tends to travel far beyond its borders. The region's importance to the global economy that Americans benefit from and depend upon cannot be underestimated, but if we keep sleepwalking on our current trajectory, we could wake up in the near future and find that American influence has been pushed out of one of the most important parts of the world, and that we cannot abide.

The world faces an unprecedented array of challenges, of which instability in the Middle East is only one. Most importantly, the United States faces growing threats from Russia and China, both of which are eager to tilt the balance of power in Europe and Asia toward them rather than toward us and the majority of the world that favors greater freedom and openness.

We need to prioritize these critical challenges by rebuilding military readiness, reorienting our force structure, investing in needed capabilities to deter near-peer competitors, and strengthening our alliances with like-minded partners and allies.

If we neglect to consolidate our gains against ISIS and address the threats to American interests throughout the Middle East, our gains will easily be overtaken. As my friend and former Secretary of State George Schultz once observed, ``If you have a garden and want to see it flourish, you have to tend to it.'' We could find ourselves enmeshed in conflicts far more costly in lives, power, and opportunity if we neglect to care for a particularly frustrating part of the world.

Our elected leaders must articulate a comprehensive strategy that reflects these judgments with specificity and detail rather than piecemeal offerings and tactical victories. Congress, with our constitutional role as a coequal branch of government, and, more importantly, the American people, deserve no less.

Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to Ronnie Lupe, a foreign war veteran and current chairman of the White Mountain Apache Tribe in Arizona. Chairman Lupe will be retiring next year following 50 years of distinguished public service to his Tribe.

Ronnie also honorably served his Nation overseas in Korea. As a young man, he journeyed far from his hometown of Cibecue to enlist in the U.S. Marine Corps. He soon found himself across the Pacific and entrenched in combat. Thankfully, Ronnie returned home safely to his family and friends.

Ronnie first joined the Tribal council in 1996. Since then, he has served as chairman of the council for a remarkable nine terms. I have enjoyed working closely with Chairman Lupe over the years. Ronnie is a tireless advocate for the principles of Tribal self-governance and Indian self-determination. He led efforts to resolve the Tribe's water rights claims and developed a reservation-wide system for clean drinking water.

Ronnie was also a pioneer in Federal Indian policy concerning wildlife conservation, expanding Tribal control over reservation land, its forest, and natural resources. He oversaw the Tribe's response and recovery in the Rodeo-Chediski Fire in 2002 and the Wallow Fire in 2011--the two worst wildfires in Arizona history. As chairman, he labored to build and nurture Tribal enterprises like Hon Dah Casino and Sunrise Park Resort, which today are hubs of tourism and recreation in the White Mountains of Arizona.

Chairman Ronnie Lupe is a celebrated Tribal leader who brought about transformative and lasting changes to the people of the White Mountain Apache Tribe. I am proud to call him my friend. I thank him for his service.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my deepest gratitude to my friends at the Mayo Clinic's Arizona campus, where I was recently treated for cancer. This is not my first obligation to the Arizona branch of this landmark medical institution, which has been a synonym for medical excellence for more than 100 years. I received outstanding care for a prior, unrelated tumor in the year 2000.

In July of this year, I found myself at Mayo once again. It is no exaggeration to say that the team of doctors, nurses, and technicians who looked after me were my salvation. They located and removed a brain tumor--a glioblastoma--that threatened my life. I will always be indebted for their timely and skillful intervention and for the outstanding support provided to my family by the entire Mayo community. Their professionalism is unmatched, as is their compassion. Thanks to my physicians, I was able to return to the Senate after only 10 days of recuperation. Following my surgery, I received radiation and chemotherapy at Mayo in one of the most modern facilities in the world.

I mention this to draw attention to Mayo's renown as a center of excellence not only in the treatment of cancer but in virtually every field of medicine. A nonprofit institution, Mayo has large hospitals in Rochester, Minnesota, Phoenix, and Jacksonville, FL, which employ almost 50,000 people. Mayo also operates a network of more than 70 affiliated hospitals and clinics, to which more than 1.3 million persons turned for treatment this year, patients from all 50 States and 137 different countries. Moreover, the Mayo system operates several premier colleges of medicine and is a world leader in medical research. This breadth of activity, outstanding in each facet, is remarkable. It is no exaggeration to claim that the Mayo Clinic is central to the astonishing success of American medicine.

I have made my own career in public service, but as I reflect on my experience as a cancer patient, I am humbled by the example of service to mankind provided by the entire Mayo family. I am and will always remain deeply grateful to everyone involved in my care.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to remember the life and legacy of one of our Nation's veterans, a longtime staffer, and a man whom I was fortunate to call my friend, James ``Bob'' Currieo. Following his retirement from my Tucson office in 2013, I am grateful that Bob was able to spend his final years with his beloved wife, Cecilia, before his passing on October 17, 2017. It is times like these that we must reflect on the legacy of such individuals, who chose service above self-interest, and Bob's 83-year life and service to our Nation and to the great State of Arizona cannot be understated.

By the time I met Bob in 1982, he had already begun his tenure as the national commander-in-chief for the Veterans of Foreign Wars; however, his legacy of service began long before. A decorated Korean war veteran, Bob honorably served over a 22-year career in the U.S. Army, including a fortunate assignment to the U.S. Army Combat Surveillance School at Fort Huachuca that would bring him to Arizona. Sierra Vista introduced Bob to the rugged and diverse beauty of our great State, a place that he would consider home for the remainder of his life.

I was fortunate that Bob accepted a role in my early Senate staff, but so evident was Bob's innate dedication to service that I fully understood and supported when he temporarily departed Arizona for the opportunity to continue his duties with the VFW as an executive in Washington, DC. We stayed in touch over the years, and I was most grateful when he returned to his beloved Arizona in 1996 and agreed to rejoin my Tucson office. There, he would spend the final 17 years of his well-decorated career advocating on behalf of veterans and servicemembers.

Every Senator will likely stress the importance of providing constituent services in their home State, but Bob shared and supported my strong opinion that, when it came to veterans and servicemembers, State lines did not matter. Of the staggering number of cases that Bob worked as a constituent advocate for residents of Arizona, nearly as many more were for veterans from across the country and indeed across the world. He helped them all equally with the same quiet but steadfast commitment, and I feel there is truly no measure for how many lives he touched and how many men and women he helped by the end of his storied career.

I will forever be thankful that Bob Currieo's intrinsic desire to serve put him on a path to Arizona that fortunately crossed my own. I will fondly remember the years of friendship and wise counsel that he so selflessly gave, and I hope his dear Cecilia will find comfort in the immeasurable legacy left behind by such an honorable man.

Thank you.

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

Mr. President, it is very hard for me to add to the eloquence of my dear friend from Arizona, but I do want to say it has been one of the great honors of my life to have the opportunity to serve with a man of integrity, of honor, decency, and commitment to not only Arizona but the United States of America.

I have seen Jeff Flake stand up for what he believes in, knowing full well that there would be a political price to pay. I have seen him stand up for his family. I have seen him stand up for his forbearers who were the early settlers of the State of Arizona. In fact, there is a place called Snowflake, AZ, and obviously the ``Flake'' part comes from his direct predecessor.

It is the Flake family and families like them who came and worked and slaved and raised families and made Arizona what it is, and it has never had a more deserving son than Jeff Flake and his beautiful wife Cheryl and children.

So I would just like to say, Jeff, I have known you now for a number of years. I know you have served Arizona and the country, and there is one thing I am absolutely sure of, and that is you will continue that service, which is part of your family. It is part of your view of America. It is part of your willingness and desire to serve Arizona. One of the great privileges of my life has been to have the opportunity to know you and serve with you.

As we look, all of us, at some point at our time that we have spent here--whether it be short or whether it be long--we look back and we think about what we could have done, what we should have done, what we might have done, the mistakes we made, and the things we are proud of. Well, when the Flake service to this country in this Senate is reviewed, it will be one of honor, of brilliance and patriotism and love of country.

I thank you. God bless you and your family.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I came to the floor today in support of the budget resolution for one reason. It is because it provides the Senate a path forward on tax reform. I strongly support this effort to fix America's burdensome tax system. It is my hope that reform will lead to simplifying the Tax Code, strengthening the middle class, and ultimately boosting our economy.

Unfortunately, I cannot offer my support without reservation, so I have come to the floor today to explain my concerns and remind my colleagues of the important work ahead of us. Even as we support this resolution as a means to achieve meaningful tax reform, we must acknowledge the fact that the underlying budget contains an insufficient level of funding for national defense. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, my highest priority is to ensure that our men and women serving in uniform have the training, equipment, and resources they need to keep our Nation safe.

The Senate budget resolution will set fiscal year 2018 defense spending at the levels dictated by the Budget Control Act cap. This budget is $54 billion less than the President's request and $86 billion less than this body authorized just last month in the National Defense Authorization Act. We passed the National Defense Authorization Act by a vote of 89 to 9, a demonstration of the overwhelming bipartisan belief that the Budget Control Act level of defense spending is inadequate and unacceptable.

Let be me clear. There is no BCA-level defense budget that would be sufficient to provide our military with what they need to fulfill current missions and prepare for future threats.

For those of us who have been paying attention, we heard the warnings of the steady decline of our military. Time and again our senior military and civilian defense leaders have sounded the alarm about the dangers of the Budget

Control Act spending caps. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, our highest uniformed military officer, General Dunford, has warned that if we continue on the current path, he assesses that ``within 5 years, we will lose our ability to project power; the basis of how we defend the homeland, and advance U.S. interests, and meet our alliance commitments.''

Make no mistake about what that means. America's military advantage is degrading. Without the ability to project power, the United States will no longer be a global power. That means that we put at risk not only our ability to secure our interests and protect our Nation but also the unprecedented era of security and prosperity that American global leadership has provided the world.

I might add for the benefit of my colleagues that former President George W. Bush today gave a very strong statement emphasizing this problem and the challenge we face. This is the strategic reality we are facing in the next 5 years. It should not be a surprise. We have seen the steady degradation of the military. The strain of constant operational tempo, combined with inadequate and unstable funding has, over the past 16 years, worn down the greatest military in the world.

Just this week, Secretary of Defense Mattis sent a letter to the Armed Services Committee expressing his concerns with regard to the National Defense Authorization Act that we are currently negotiating with the House. The very first thing he said before addressing any of the policy changes and reforms in the bill is that his primary concern is the Budget Control Act, and we know why--because the defense spending caps are doing such immense harms to our military. Secretary Mattis wrote:

As I have testified before your committee, no enemy has

done more to harm the warfighting readiness of our military

than sequestration.

I will repeat that for the benefit of my colleagues.

. . . no enemy has done more to harm the warfighting

readiness of our military than sequestration. Current caps

continue to unnecessarily defer critical maintenance, limit

aviation availability, delay modernization, and strain our

men and women in uniform.

We have seen the evidence of this harm. Over the last few months there have been a rash of training accidents, collisions, and crashes. We are seeing the tragic accidents in the news far too often.

Seven sailors were killed when the USS Fitzgerald collided with a containership off the coast of Japan.

A Marine KC-130 crash in Mississippi killed all 16 troops on board.

An Osprey helicopter crashed off the coast of Australia and that resulted in the deaths of three marines.

An Army helicopter crashed off the coast of Hawaii, with five soldiers presumed dead.

Ten sailors perished when the USS McCain collided with a tanker near Singapore.

An Army Black Hawk helicopter went down during a training mission off the coast of Yemen, and one soldier died.

One soldier died during helicopter training at Fort Hood.

An amphibious vehicle explosion at Camp Pendleton injured 15 Americans.

A demolition accident in Fort Bragg killed one soldier and injured seven others.

Two Navy pilots died in a T-45 crash in Tennessee.

My friends, we are now losing more of our men and women in uniform in totally avoidable training accidents than we are in combat. There is plenty of blame to go around for all of these incidents, but we cannot ignore the fact that Congress's inability to provide adequate, stable, and predictable budgeting has contributed to the troubling state of affairs. While increased funding is not the only answer, there is no scenario where our military can get healthy and ready to meet the challenges of an increasingly unstable world without additional resources. There is broad, bipartisan agreement about that from Members of the House of Representatives, here in the Senate, and the President. Yet we are about to vote for a budget resolution that severely underfunds the military because the reality is that we all know that it would not impact the actual appropriations. To solve these problems and to fulfill our duty to the men and women in uniform we must negotiate a bipartisan budget agreement that will lift the caps on defense spending. Only then can we rebuild the military, reverse the disturbing readiness crisis, and retain our ability to project power and secure our interests around the world.

I remind my colleagues that the fiscal year started 3 weeks ago and that the Defense Department is currently operating under a continuing resolution. We know the harmful effects it will have on the military. That is why getting to work on a budget deal is so urgent. We must delay no longer.

The budget resolution is not meant to provide that broader budget agreement. This budget resolution is simply a means to get us to tax reform. However, this budget resolution does represent something extremely troubling. The Republican Party used to be unified in its support for a strong national defense. If our leaders in Congress and the White House don't immediately get to work negotiating a deal to lift the defense caps and fund the military at a higher level than in this budget resolution, I am not sure we will be able to claim that mantle any longer.

I just want to sum up by saying that we have a problem in the military today, and that is, whenever there are cuts in defense spending, the first thing that goes are the easy ones--the training, readiness, the spare parts, the flying hours. Those are the ones that get cut first because they are the easiest. Cutting a major weapons system or program is extremely difficult.

So now we have this list, as I just read off, of men and women serving in the military and we are responsible, at least partially, for their death and injury. Why? Because they are not able to be trained. They are not able to be equipped. They are not able to be maintained, and 60 percent of the F-18s are not able to fly. We have sailors and airmen who are working 100-hour workweeks. We have gigantic problems with the ability to simply operate.

Meanwhile, our adversaries are stepping up their capabilities. Obviously, every time we turn around there is another crisis of some kind. Look at the world 8 years ago and look at the world today. You will find an incredible deterioration of America's position and influence in the world. The front page of the Economist magazine this week has a picture of the dictator of China and the title is ``The world's most powerful man,'' and it is true.

So here we are with a budget resolution that basically has cut our military--that is basically not funding what we need. My friends, I do not mean to get emotional, but why should we send these young men and women in uniform in harm's way without all they need in order to fight and defend this Nation? Right now, they are not ready. Right now, their planes can't fly. Right now, they are not able to operate and train. They are not ready, and that is not just McCain's word. That is our military leaders' words and those of some of the most respected people in America and in the world. General Mattis, General McMaster, and General Kelly will all tell you the same thing.

We are sending our young men and women into hazardous situations without their being completely equipped and capable of defending themselves. That is wrong. What greater responsibility do we have than to the men and women who are serving us in uniform today? Four just died in Niger. How many of the 100 Members of this body knew that we even had an operation in Niger? I will not go into the details, in deference to the family, but this is wrong, what we are doing. We saw it in the 1970s, and now we are seeing it again. It was Mark Twain who said: ``History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.'' It is beginning to rhyme, and if we don't, with this resolution that we are going through, increase our spending to the level as authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act, then we will bear some responsibility for what happens.

I yield the floor.

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

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