Floor Statements

Mr. President, this week marks 30 years of loyal service to the Senate by one Joe Donoghue, my legislative director--30 years working for the citizens of Arizona and trying to make me a better Senator. During those three decades, he worked his way from the mailroom to a position of considerable importance on my staff. He has made himself something of an expert not only on Senate procedure but on all the many issues our staff has worked on over the years--from budget matters to immigration reform, to national security.

Joe is capable, intelligent, hard-working, and trustworthy--a justifiably proud professional staffer, a pro's pro. He is well liked by staff and Members on both sides of the aisle, especially by those who, like him, have dedicated most of their careers to the Senate. I have come to depend on his professionalism and his counsel. More than that, my wife Cindy and my children treasure his friendship, as do I-- as do I.

Joe and I began our Senate careers around the same time. He started sorting mail and performing other entry-level duties in the first year of my first term. He was 18 years old. I wasn't quite that young, but it was a long time ago for both of us.

When he came to work with us, I don't think Joe knew if I was a Republican or Democrat. He just knew he needed a part-time job to pay for books and beer. These were pre-internet and email days, and making certain the immense amount of mail we received from constituents was opened, given to me or to appropriate staff, and answered as quickly as possible was very labor intensive and challenging, but he acquitted himself well, as he has with every responsibility he has accepted on my behalf.

His work ethic and reliability quickly made him indispensable. He worked his way up to legislative correspondent and then to legislative assistant, with the lead responsibility for, among other things, helping me fight years of pitched battles with appropriations bills, targeting wasteful spending, and the practice of earmarking. Those were the days when the Senate actually debated appropriations bills. I have many fond memories of Joe drafting thousands of amendments at my direction to strike wasteful earmarks, although I am not sure they are fond memories for the floor staff who had to process the amendments.

As I mentioned, in addition to his legislative work, Joe was my driver for over 20 years. I travel an awful lot, back and forth to Arizona on weekends, campaigning for colleagues, and on overseas trips. During the week, when the Senate is in session, my nights are often consumed with meetings, dinners, and speeches. Joe worked a long shift in the office during the day and drove me to various appointments day and night--taking me to airports and picking me up, getting me safely and on time through Washington traffic to keep a schedule that was always impossibly crowded.

We spent a lot of hours together--thousands of hours--and Joe was almost always good company, even when I was not. He always made a point on those drives to tell me a joke, and some of them got me in trouble when I repeated them in public.

During my 2008 Presidential campaign, Joe worked as my assistant, traveling from campaign stop to campaign stop, doing all manner of small and large tasks for me, even once holding an umbrella overhead while I gave a speech in the rain in Manchester, NH.

As my legislative director, Joe is someone everyone on my staff looks to for policy guidance and instruction on Senate procedure and for insights into the personalities and priorities of senior staff in other offices and for the leadership. He goes out of his way to make sure each one of my staff knows they are appreciated and an integral part of our office. I am grateful for Joe Donoghue's faithful service to my office, the Senate, the people of Arizona, and to me.

On their behalf and mine, I want to thank Joe. I have barked at you, teased you, laughed with you, and counted on you. We have been through a lot of highs and lows in our 30-year association--good times and bad. The good times were better and the bad times easier because of your help and friendship. Thank you, my friend, my dear friend. It has been quite a ride together. I cannot imagine serving here without you.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Great job.

Thank you.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments to H.R. 2810, as amended, be considered and agreed to en bloc: Kaine No. 277, Tester No. 434, Heitkamp No. 574, Merkley No. 660, Whitehouse No. 750, Van Hollen No. 756, Murray No. 833, Brown No. 890, Cardin No. 900, Leahy No. 903, Baldwin No. 904, Peters No. 950, Heitkamp No. 976, Cantwell No. 995, Stabenow No. 1014, Whitehouse No. 1015, Harris No. 1021, Sanders No. 1023, Cantwell No. 1065, Bennet No. 1087, Wyden No. 1088, Kaine No. 1089, Cortez-Masto No. 1094, Lee No. 470, Moran No. 601, Portman No. 712, Inhofe No. 780, Ernst No. 873, McCain No. 874, Johnson No. 879, Murkowski No. 908, Rubio No. 927, Isakson No. 943, Flake No. 945, Moran No. 1006, Tillis No. 1031, Perdue No. 1033, Strange No. 1034, Lankford No. 1038, Rounds No. 1039, Scott No. 1050, Portman No. 1055, Tillis No. 1063, Sullivan No. 1073, Strange No. 1086, Graham No. 1096, and Isakson No. 1032.

Mr. President, I ask to add Durbin No. 1100. I intentionally omitted him the first time around in hopes that it wouldn't be noticed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment numbers at the desk be reflected in the list.

Mr. President, I yield back my remaining time.

Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from New York. I thank him for the cooperation we have gotten in the consideration of this important legislation.

I would just ask the Democratic leader, is it reasonable to assume that we could finish this up today or set a time for it on Monday?

Good. I hope we can do that.

I again thank the leader from New York, who has been very cooperative to me and to the Senator from Rhode Island as we have moved forward with this legislation. I thank him.

Training Accident at Camp Pendleton

Mr. President, I wish to begin by offering my thoughts and prayers to the marines who were injured yesterday when their amphibious assault vehicle caught fire during a training exercise at Camp Pendleton in California. With 15 marines hospitalized and 5 in critical condition, I join all of my colleagues in hoping for a full and speedy recovery for each of these brave young servicemembers.

Last night, unfortunately, the majority leader was required to file cloture on the National Defense Authorization Act for 2018. We have gotten a lot done in the short time this legislation has been on the floor. I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that it is my hope that we will be able to do more.

I thank my friend from Rhode Island. I thank Members who have been very helpful and cooperative in this effort, as we have considered a 27-to-0 vote through the committee. It passed unanimously. We have engaged in spirited, thoughtful debate, and we have ultimately adopted 277 amendments from both Republicans and Democrats.

I sound like a broken record, but this is the way the Senate should conduct business. The authorizing committee reports out legislation that has been examined with hearings and debate and amendments, and it appears on the floor, and we have additional debates and amendments, and people can vote yes or no, but they are informed.

It is a violation of our oath of office when we are told that one- fifth of the gross national product--i.e. healthcare--is going to be decided by a ``skinny repeal'' that none of us had seen until an hour or two before. That is not the way the Senate should do business.

We are not perfect. We are going to have to invoke cloture on this bill. We are not going to have some debate and votes on some very important--at least four--issues. But while we have been on this bill, we have adopted 277 amendments. We had hours and hours of hearings. We had a week of putting this bill

together on a bipartisan basis, and it was reported out by over one- quarter of the Senate, to zero. That is the way we should be doing business.

I will freely admit that national security probably is at a higher level of importance--and should be--than the average legislation, but shouldn't we learn from this that if we sit down together, we argue, we fight, we debate, and then we reach consensus, we come to the floor of the Senate and to the American people with something that we are proud of and that we can defend?

As I mentioned, there are still some issues that we are negotiating on, back and forth--and we are negotiating--and hopefully we can get those done before cloture is invoked. I hope the majority leader and the Democratic leader will agree to a time certain for final passage.

Let me just say that I support beginning to move toward final passage, which will provide our Armed Forces the resources they need.

By the way, again, I want to emphasize that on the Armed Services Committee, we have had dozens of hearings on topics such as the global threat environment, the effects of defense budget cuts, and military readiness and modernization. Those hearings informed the work of the committee as we moved toward the legislation.

I know that all of us from time to time like to take credit for accomplishments that maybe we are not as responsible for as we would advertise, but I want to say that I am not just proud of John McCain and Jack Reed, I am proud of the 27 members of the Armed Services Committee who--and the debate was spirited. It is not the Bobbsey Twins. We fight in a spirited fashion. We defend what we believe in. But once the committee is decided, then we move on.

So my colleagues have embraced the spirit of that process, and we have submitted more than 500 amendments for consideration this week. The Senator from Rhode Island and I negotiated a number of very good amendments that have the support of both Republicans and Democrats. We still have some hard issues that are remaining, and I will be talking more about them. We are still negotiating to see if we can find agreement on those, and I am guardedly optimistic we can get most of that agreement done. We will know more later on this morning or early this afternoon.

Let me also point out to my colleagues what we are talking about. We have seen Navy ships, Army, and Marine Corps helicopters, Air Force planes crashing during routine training and operations, and these incidents have cost the lives of dozens of our men and women in uniform. There are many reasons for these tragedies, but the one this body cannot avoid responsibility for is that we are failing to provide our military with the resources they need to perform the missions we are asking of them. We are asking them to do too much with too little. The result is an overworked, strained force with aging equipment--and not enough of it.

We can point fingers and assign blame all we want, but at the end of the day, the constitutional responsibility to raise moneys and maintain Navies lies with us, with the Congress. That, of course, brings up sequestration, which I will address later on.

I just want to point out, again, the men and women who wear the uniform of our country are the best of our country, and they do everything we ask of them with great courage. It is time for this body to show a similar measure of courage and end the threat sequestration poses to their mission and their lives.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode Island, my dear friend, Jack Reed, is too kind. It takes two to tango. The partnership we have developed over the years has made it possible for us to get to the place we have in the past and we are today. He has not only my gratitude but that of the men and women who are serving because of his advocacy and his leadership.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota. She has been an advocate on this issue for a number of years. Obviously, as she stated with some articulation, we are talking about the fundamental of democracy, and the threat to it has probably never been greater.

She also understands there is an issue of germaneness and committees of responsibility and all that, but I want to tell the Senator from Minnesota that I appreciate her advocacy. This issue is not going away. I look forward to continuing to work with her because this is really-- it may be in some ways one of the greatest threats to democracy we have faced, and I know she has been an advocate on this issue for a number of years. I thank her.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me state the bottom line up front. This year's NDAA, once again, focuses medical research dollars on the needs of servicemembers and military veterans, and it increases transparency on how these taxpayer funds are being spent.

The amendment of the Senator from Illinois would take hundreds of millions of dollars away from defense needs to spend it on research activities totally unrelated to the mission of the military and shield these activities from critical oversight by the Department and the Congress.

Let me state this up front: If these medical research dollars were invested in the proper branch of government, I would be one of its strongest supporters. What we are seeing here--what we see so often--is the Willie Sutton syndrome. They asked Willie Sutton: Why do you rob banks? He said: That is where the money is.

Why do you think medical research for autism, spinal cord injury, prosthetics, or many others have nothing to do with defense? Let's take it out. Let's appropriate the right amount of money to the right branch of government. So while we are watching the defense dollars--thanks to sequestration--going down over the last 20 years, Congress has provided more than $11.7 billion in medical research.

According to--what is aptly named over in Defense--the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs, 12 out of 28 current research programs do not mention the military, combat, or servicemembers and their official mission or vision statements.

So let me repeat this for the benefit of my colleagues. Spending on medical research at the Department of Defense, nearly 15 percent of which has nothing to do with the military, has grown 4,000 percent since 1992--4,000 percent. So in the meantime, the Budget Control Act is constraining the DOD budget. It has done great harm to our military. Every single service chief and combatant commander over the last 5 years has testified to the Armed Services Committee that the budget caps imposed by BCA have hurt our military readiness and have made it more difficult to respond to the Nation's growing threats. Yet, during this time of severe defense budget restrictions, funding for the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs has nearly doubled. Is that our priority?

I suggest to the Senator from Illinois: Why don't you go to the right place in the appropriations bill and allocate research funds there? Why don't you do that? You are not going there because it is the Willie Sutton syndrome.

What you are doing is you are taking away from the men and women serving

in the military what they need to defend this Nation.

No, I will not yield.

The fact is that we have now had a rash of fatal accidents in the military--10 from the USS McCain and 17 more. We now have many more accidents due to the lack of readiness, training, and maintenance than we do in combat. So what do we do? Do we stop cutting the military? No, we add $11.7 billion for medical research.

I am for medical research. I know of no one who opposes medical research, but do we take it out of defense? This is the directed spending on medical research at the Department of Defense.

You may see that in 1992 it was a small amount of money for breast cancer research. Like other government programs, it has grown and grown and grown. If you will take a look at the pink side here, you will see that what also has grown is those programs that have no relevance to the military. I want to say it one more time. No, I will say it again and again and again. If the Senator from Illinois wants this money spent for medical research, then, take it out of the right place. Don't be Willie Sutton. Take it from where it belongs, instead of taking it from the men and women in the military who are undermanned, undertrained, underequipped, and in harm's way.

So you have a choice here, my dear friends. Yes, who could be against medical research? Nobody who I know. But who could be in favor of taking money from the men and women and their training, equipment, and readiness, when every single service chief has testified before the Armed Services Committee that we are putting the lives of men and women serving in the military at greater risk? So we are going to see these billions of dollars taken out of defending the Nation and the arms, the training, and the equipment that the men and women in the military need.

Now, if the Senator from Illinois wants to fund those that are militarily relevant, I would be glad to go along with that, but see what has grown and grown and grown from 1992, when it was $25 million. Now it is billions of dollars. Let's see. Funding has increased by 4,000 percent from $25 million in 1992 to over $1 billion last year.

Spending on medical research--nearly 50 percent of which has nothing to do with the military--has grown 4,000 percent since 1992. So let's not say that we are shorting the men and women in the military when that spending has increased by 4,000 percent.

Again, I would like every one of my colleagues to listen to the leaders of our military and to the men and women who are serving. They don't have enough training. They don't have enough equipment. They are not ready, and it is being reflected in these kinds of accidents where we are killing more members of the military in training than we are in combat, and every one of the service chiefs will tell you that it is because of lack of funding for training and readiness and maintenance. This has to stop.

The NDAA this year prohibits the Secretary of Defense and the service Secretaries from funding or conducting a medical research and development project unless they certify that the project would protect, enhance, or restore the health and safety of members of the Armed Forces. Is that an outrageous requirement that we should spend tax dollars that are for defense that would actually be used for defense? Wouldn't that be outrageous?

So it requires that medical research projects are open to competition and comply with other DOD, or Department of Defense, cost accounting standards. So we are not only asking them to be responsible but to comply with other Department of Defense cost accounting standards. So why that should be unacceptable, I don't know.

So the Senator from Illinois has submitted an amendment that would strike these requirements--it would strike these requirements--to adhere to the Department of Defense cost accounting standards. Why? Why would you not want to go along with cost accounting standards?

So it is certainly not an accident that the largest spike in congressionally directed medical research funding coincides with the tenure of the Senator from Illinois as chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee Defense Subcommittee, in which, I say, he has done an outstanding job. Hundreds of millions of dollars in the defense budget will be used for medical research unrelated to defense, and it was not requested by the administration.

If this amendment passes, hundreds of millions of dollars will be taken away from military servicemembers and their families. If this amendment passes, hundreds of millions of dollars will not be used to provide a full 2.1-percent pay raise for our troops. It will not be used to build up the size of our Army and Marine Corps. It will not be used to buy equipment so that our airmen don't have to steal spare parts of airplanes in the boneyard to keep the oldest, smallest, and least ready Air Force in our history in the air.

So I say to my friend and colleague from Illinois, it is not that he is wrong to support medical research. We all support medical research. It is that he has proposed the wrong amendment to support medical research. Instead of proposing to take away hundreds of millions of dollars from our military servicemembers, he should be proposing a way to begin the long overdue process of shifting nonmilitary medical research spending out of the Department of Defense and into the appropriate civilian departments and agencies of our government.

I want to emphasize again that this debate is not about the value of this medical research or whether Congress should support it. I, of all people, know the miracle of modern medicine and am grateful for all who support it, and I am sure every Senator understands the value of medical research to Americans suffering from these diseases and to the family and friends who care for them and to all those who know the pain and grief of losing a loved one. But I will repeat again that this research does not belong in the Department of Defense. It belongs in civilian departments and agencies of our government.

So I say to my colleagues that the National Defense Authorization Act focuses the Department's research efforts on medical research that will lead to lifesaving advancements in battlefield medicine and new therapies for recovery and rehabilitation of servicemembers wounded on the battlefield. This amendment would harm our national security. The amendment of the Senator from Illinois would harm our national security by reducing the funding available for militarily relevant medical research that helps protect servicemen and servicewomen on the battlefield and for military capabilities they desperately need to perform their missions. It would continue to put decision-making about medical research in the hands of lobbyists and politicians, instead of medical experts where it belongs.

I would like to repeat for at least the fifth time that I strongly support funding for medical research. I do not support funding for medical research that has nothing to do with the Department of Defense. The dollars are too scarce. You can see the way that it has gone up and up and up. So what we are trying to do is to preserve medical research where it applies to the Department of Defense and not use it for every other program, which should be funded by other agencies of government. I am very aware of the power and influence of the lobbyists who lobby for this kind of money, knowing full well that this is the easiest place to get the money.

I just hope that some of us would understand that 10 sailors just died onboard the USS John S. McCain. They died because that ship was not ready, not trained, not equipped, and not capable of doing its job because they didn't have enough funding. Let's get our priorities straight.

I yield the floor.

I object.

Go ahead.

Madam President, I thank the majority leader for all the support and assistance we have been given on this issue. Of course, I regret that we finally had to turn to cloture. The fact is that we have incorporated over 100 amendments offered by Senators of both parties, and it means the NDAA becomes stronger as a result of including these amendments. Second, the process took a step in the right direction, as Senators were able to have their voices and opinions heard and reflected in this legislation.

I wish we had never had to come to voting for cloture, but I wish to say that we have made enormous progress. We have had debate. We have had amendments. We have had votes. All of these are the ``regular order'' that some of us have been arguing for that the U.S. Senate--in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

I am very appreciative of the cooperation of Members on both sides, including Senator Reed. I believe we can be proud of our product. It came down to about four amendments on which we could never get agreement to move forward--that compared to the over 100 amendments we were able to adopt.

I still wish we had been able to go completely through this process without having to resort to cloture, but I do want to thank Members on both sides--as we approach cloture--for their cooperation, for their involvement, for their engagement, and for their dedication to the men and women who are serving us in the military.

We look forward to the next hours. We will have debate and hopefully some amendments proposed, vote cloture, and have it completed sometime early next week. The work that needs to be done will be done, accomplished before then.

I thank all my colleagues for their participation. I thank them for their engagement and involvement. I am proud of this product, which comes after hundreds of hours of hearings, of negotiation, of discussion, and of debate, because it proves that the first priority of Members on both sides of the aisle is the men and women in the military and their ability to defend the Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, there be 10 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form, and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment No. 1003, as modified.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. I thank her for her agreement that we should move forward with this important legislation, and I am very proud of the way this legislation has proceeded before the Senate most of the way. But now I am not very proud because we are now not allowing Senators to have a vote.

I do not agree with the amendment from the Senator from Wisconsin, but I strongly believe she should have the right to have her amendment considered, debated, and voted on.

I am very proud of the fact that we have approved and agreed to 103 amendments. We still have three or four amendments that have caused us to be where we are today. It will be a conference item, the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin, and although I do not agree with it, I will certainly make sure that it is part of the conference.

But I want to remind my colleagues again that one of the reasons we had 107 votes for and 0 against is that we went through a process of days, weeks, and months of hearings, study, debate, discussion, and bringing it to the floor. That is the way the Senate should work.

I thank the Senator from Wisconsin, and I want to tell her and the Senator from New York, Mrs. Gillibrand, that I will continue to do everything I can to make sure they are given the rights that they earned by being elected in the States they represent.

Mr. President, I have no further use of the time.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York, with whom I have had the pleasure and displeasure of working on many occasions. He is a strong advocate for what he believes in. Yet, over the years I have worked with him, his word is good, and when it comes to tough discussion and agreement and when agreement is reached, he sticks to his word, and that is an important element in our ability to work together.

I thank the Senator from New York for his efforts in bringing us together in a bipartisan fashion. I hope that what we will get done in the next few days is an example of what we can do when working together, so I thank him for his opening remarks and his advocacy in our bipartisan work together.

I join my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, to speak about the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his hard work on the NDAA. I remain appreciative of the thoughtfulness with which and bipartisan spirit in which he approaches national security issues. He is a great partner, and this legislation would not be possible if it were not for his contributions and leadership.

In June, the Senate Armed Services Committee passed the National Defense Authorization Act unanimously, by a vote of 27 to 0. During that process, the committee considered and adopted 277 amendments that were offered by Republicans and Democrats--some with very spirited debate and discussion. I thank each of my fellow members of the Armed Services Committee. A vote of 27 to 0 is something we can be proud of. I am tremendously proud of the committee's work. The bill, as I mentioned, passed unanimously this year for the first time in 5 years. I was especially proud of the way in which my colleagues worked to overcome differences, of the respect that each member showed for one another, and of the common commitment to support our servicemembers and help our military achieve its mission.

Now we are prepared to consider the legislation on the floor under an open amendment process that will allow all Senators to have their voices heard. I thank the majority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, for bringing the NDAA to the Senate floor this week and for doing so, once again, under regular order. That means that we will have amendments, that we will have debate, that we will have spirited discussion, which is what the Senate is supposed to have.

I am guardedly optimistic that at the end of this, we will complete legislation which will be better for having gone through that process and for the men and women who are now in harm's way, defending our Nation.

For 55 consecutive years, Congress has passed this piece of legislation. That record speaks primarily to the importance of this legislation to our national security. I know that all of my colleagues would agree that our men and women in uniform deserve our constant support and unending thanks for their sacrifice and service. No other piece of legislation has a long history of broad, bipartisan support. In today's political climate, the passage of this legislation may be exactly what we need to remind ourselves of the important work the American people sent us here to do.

The NDAA is a piece of legislation in which this body and Members on both sides of the aisle can and should take immense pride. Not only does this legislation provide our men and women in uniform with the resources they need and deserve, but it is the product of an open and bipartisan process that represents the best of the Senate, and it could not come at a more important time.

The threats to our national security have not been more complex, severe, or daunting at any time in the past seven decades, and our job is to ensure that we have a military capable of meeting those threats. For too long, we have locked ourselves into making strategic decisions based on budget realities. It is time to start making budget decisions based on strategic realities.

Just consider the current threats to our national security.

Day after day, test after test, North Korea continues to get ever closer to developing the capability to strike the U.S. homeland with a nuclear-armed missile and continues to threaten our allies in the region.

While we have made some important gains in the fight against ISIS, the campaign to achieve a lasting defeat of terrorist threats and to secure our enduring national security interests in Iraq and Syria is far from over.

Iran continues to destabilize the Middle East and seeks to drive the United States out of the region.

We have entered a new era of great power competition as Russia and China contest the rules-based liberal world order that is the foundation of our security and prosperity.

Every day we learn more about Russia's asymmetric capabilities--from cyber attacks to disinformation campaigns--even as they modernize their military, occupy Crimea, destabilize Ukraine, and threaten our NATO allies.

Meanwhile, China continues to militarize the South China Sea and modernize its own military at an alarming rate.

We must not forget that we are a Nation at war, with thousands of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines deployed in harm's way in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the globe.

Yet, as dangerous as these and other foreign threats are, perhaps the greatest harm to our national security and our military is self- inflicted. I repeat: self-inflicted. It is the accumulation of years of uncertain, untimely, and inadequate defense funding that has shrunk our operational forces, harmed their readiness, stunted their modernization, and, as every single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has repeatedly testified before the Committee on Armed Services, put the lives of our servicemembers at greater risk. I want to repeat that. Every one of our military leaders in uniform has said that because of what we have done with the so-called sequestration, it has put the lives of our servicemembers at greater risk. Don't we have an obligation not to do that?

Now we are paying the awful price. This summer alone, 42--I repeat, 42--servicemembers tragically perished in accidents during routine training operations. On June 17, seven sailors were killed when the USS Fitzgerald collided with a container ship off the coast of Japan.

On July 10, a Marine KC-130 crashed in Mississippi and killed all 16 troops on board.

On August 21, 10 sailors perished when the USS McCain collided with a tanker near Singapore.

On August 25, an Army Black Hawk helicopter went missing during a training mission off the coast of Yemen, and one soldier died.

Just last week in Nevada, two Air Force A-10 aircraft crashed into each other. Thank God the pilots safely ejected, but the planes were lost--at a cost of over $100 million.

For the two Pacific Fleet naval collisions, ship repairs are estimated to cost more than half a billion dollars.

The lives lost in each of these incidents were priceless.

Over the past 3 years, a total of 185 men and women in uniform have been killed in noncombat accidents. During this same period, 44 servicemembers were killed in combat. The bottom line is this, and I want all of my colleagues to concentrate on what I am about to say: We are killing more of our own people in training than our enemies are in combat.

We were warned about this. We were warned. We were warned by our senior defense and military leaders and by many of us in Congress. Earlier this year, Secretary Mattis testified that ``no enemy in the field has done more to harm the combat readiness of our military than sequestration.''

Secretary Mattis went on to say: ``We are no longer managing risk; we are now gambling.'' Now, it is clear that we are not only gambling with our

ability to fight and win wars. We are also gambling with the very ability of our troops to operate safely during peacetime.

In that same hearing, General Dunford--I will remind my colleagues, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--described what is at stake if we continue down the path of budget cuts, saying: ``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.'' Those are not my words. They are the words of the senior general officer in the U.S. military.

Each of our military service chiefs has testified time and again before congressional committees about the dangers of sequestration, Budget Control Act-level spending, and repeated continuing resolutions.

The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Richardson, testified: ``Eight years of continuing resolutions including a year of sequestration have driven additional costs and time into just about everything that we do. . . . The disruption this uncertainty imposes translates directly into risks for our Navy and our nation.''

General Neller, Commandant of the Marine Corps, said: ``Sequestration impacts on key modernization programs will have catastrophic effects on achieving desired capabilities to defeat emerging threats and will place an unacceptable burden on legacy programs.''

The Air Force Chief of Staff, General Goldfein, testified: ``Repealing sequestration, returning to stable budgets without extended continuing resolutions and allowing us the flexibility to reduce excess infrastructure and make strategic trades are essential to success.''

The Army Chief of Staff, General Milley has said: ``Candidly, failure to pass a budget, in my view both as an American citizen and chief of staff of the United States Army, constitutes professional malpractice.''

``Professional malpractice,'' he said.

He added: ``A year-long CR or a return to the [Budget Control Act- level] funding will . . . increase risk to the nation, and it will ultimately result in dead Americans on a future battlefield.''

We need look no further than all of the recent training accidents, collisions, and crashes for evidence that these warnings and concerns were well placed, and the troubling signs were there. Failure to meet training requirements and fulfill safety certifications has become all too common in the force--especially in the U.S. Navy.

Recent reporting details a troubled state of affairs. The GAO found that 37 percent--well over one-third--of the training certifications for U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers based in Japan are expired-- technically meaning that they are not prepared.

The USS McCain had expired training certifications for 6 out of the 10 key warfare mission areas prior to its collision. The USS Fitzgerald had expired certifications for all of its 10 mission areas.

Lest anyone think the Navy is the only service facing troubling readiness statistics, I will remind my colleagues that only 5--5 out of the 58--Army brigades and 4 of the 64 Air Force squadrons are combat- ready.

There is plenty of responsibility to go around for the deteriorated state of our military. The Senate Armed Services Committee will continue to hold hearings and conduct rigorous oversight of these military readiness challenges, looking at everything from command responsibility to readiness standards, to training culture within our military. We will continue seeking explanations for the causes of these incidents, corrective actions to remedy these causes, and accountability from leadership.

Yet we can't ignore Congress's role and our responsibility. Years of budget cuts have forced our military to try to do too much with too little. As we have asked our military to maintain a high operational tempo with limited resources, we know what has suffered: Training, maintenance, readiness, effectiveness, and the lives of too many brave young servicemembers.

But despite the abundant evidence that our military faces a readiness crisis that is putting lives at risk, this body voted just last week to put the Department of Defense on yet another continuing resolution for the start of fiscal year 2018. We know that continuing resolutions cause a great deal of harm to our military.

Just last week, Secretary Mattis sent a letter to the Armed Services Committee detailing the detrimental effects of a continuing resolution. He said that the impacts of a CR are felt immediately by our military and will grow exponentially over time if we repeat this mistake in December. In the next 3 months, the Navy will delay ship inductions and reduce flying hours, the Army will postpone maintenance, the Air Force will limit execution of infrastructure funding, and all services will delay training and curtail recruitment, leaving, according to Secretary Mattis, ``critical gaps in the workforce skill set.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Secretary Mattis outlining his concerns.

Mr. President, the vote we took to begin the year on a continuing resolution locks the Department of Defense into last year's funding level. It prevents them from reprogramming funding to meet emerging needs. It prohibits the start of new programs to modernize for future threats. Perhaps worst of all, a continuing resolution mandates a level of spending that is $89 billion less than the fiscal year 2018 funding level authorized in this legislation.

When the Senate voted to put the Department of Defense on a continuing resolution, it voted in favor of the status quo for our military, where more servicemembers are dying in accidents than in all the wars we are fighting combined. Last week's vote signaled that the current, undeniably degraded state of our Armed Forces is just fine with us. It was irresponsible and unacceptable.

We must all do better. Pentagon leaders must make clear-eyed assessments and ask for what they fully need, and this body must provide the resources required. That is the only way to stop gambling and restore readiness, and this is the bare minimum we owe to the brave men and women who fight to defend this Nation.

That is why this legislation is more important and vital than ever. The

NDAA delivers the resources, equipment, and training our men and women in uniform need to meet the increasingly complex challenges of today's world. It begins the process of truly restoring readiness and rebuilding our military.

The Defense authorization bill authorizes a base defense budget that, together with the administration's request of $8 billion for other defense activities, supports a total defense budget of $640 billion in funding for the Department of Defense and the national security programs at the Department of Energy. The legislation also authorizes $60 billion for overseas contingency operations. In total, this legislation supports a national defense topline of $700 billion.

This funding is critical to begin addressing the readiness shortfall and modernization crisis currently facing our military. With our adversaries investing heavily in their own militaries and developing future warfighting capabilities intended to erode our military advantage, we cannot wait any longer to recapitalize our forces and restore our capabilities.

The national defense topline in this legislation is significantly higher than the administration's budget request. It is worth considering why, in committee, more than one-quarter of the Members of this body--one-quarter of the Members of this body, Senators of both parties and of all political stripes--voted for a higher defense topline. The answer is simple. Today's national security threats demand more resources. While not every crisis has a military solution, our military remains an indispensable aspect of America's ability to project power and provide the framework for global stability and security.

The problem is that funding to meet these national security threats and challenges has been constrained by the arbitrary caps of the Budget Control Act. Members from both sides of the aisle have acknowledged that the Budget Control Act simply does not allow for adequate spending on national defense.

While altering the Budget Control Act or the spending caps is outside of the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee, the committee has expressed its support in this legislation for the unconditional repeal of the Budget Control Act. Congress must summon the political courage to admit that this legislation has failed, rise above politics, and fix it.

The Budget Control Act has not achieved its intended purpose by reducing the deficit. For years, it has prevented Congress from providing our military servicemembers with the resources they need. This cannot continue. I tell my colleagues, this cannot continue. We can, and must, do better.

Under the Budget Control Act, defense spending for fiscal year 2018 would be capped at $549 billion. That is $54 billion less than what the President requested for defense and $91 billion less than what the Armed Services Committee supported.

The members of the Armed Services Committee agreed unanimously that any defense budget at that level would be inadequate and unacceptable. That has been reinforced time and again over the last several years in testimony from senior military and civilian defense leaders who have come before our committee with warnings of the danger of the BCA spending caps and sequestration.

At the conclusion of debate on this legislation, the Senate's passage of the NDAA has served as evidence that an overwhelming bipartisan majority of this body agrees that the status quo is not sufficient, and we need to spend more money on defense to keep our Nation safe.

Even so, the unfortunate truth is, with BCA as the law of the land, $549 billion is the only defense budget that is currently legal, unless Congress acts. It is up to this Congress to decide if that is the defense budget we want. In doing so, we must remember that a BCA-level defense budget cannot give us the military we need.

The President also acknowledges that a BCA-level defense budget of $549 billion is inadequate, and he campaigned on the promise of rebuilding the military. That is why it was so disappointing that the President's budget request did not deliver on the promise of the military buildup we need.

The defense budget request came in at $603 billion. It is important to recognize three important factors about that number. First, it is rooted in the same arbitrary policy as $549 billion, since $603 billion is simply the original BCA cap before sequestration takes effect; second, it represents only a 3-percent increase over the Obama administration's defense budget plan; and, third, it is plainly inadequate to meet our Nation's defense needs.

One indication of this is that the military services sent this Congress lists of unfunded requirements. That meant requirements they have but we are not funding, and that means over $30 billion that our military needs to do its job. It is time for Congress to do our job and provide the resources they need.

What our military needs is a real buildup. The NDAA is the start of what will be a years-long process of rebuilding our military after years of devastating cuts to the defense budget. We must begin that process now. Our men and women in uniform can't afford to wait any longer.

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

The NDAA authorizes a pay raise for our troops. It improves military family readiness and supports the civilians and contractors who support our Armed Forces. It provides support for our allies and partners around the world who are dedicated to advancing the cause of freedom, deterring the aggression of our adversaries, and defeating the scourge of terrorism.

This legislation recognizes the reality of the dangerous world our men and women in uniform face every day. As threats turn into crises around the world, we have asked these brave servicemembers to do more with less. That must end now.

The NDAA takes important steps to deter Russian aggression, whether across its borderers or in cyber space. Russia continues to occupy Crimea, destabilize Ukraine, threaten our NATO allies, violate the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and bolster the Assad regime in Syria. In an unparalleled attack on our core interests and values, Russia engaged in an active, purposeful campaign to undermine the integrity of American democracy and affect the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election.

The legislation authorizes nearly $5 billion for the European Deterrence Initiative to bolster U.S. capabilities in Europe and support our regional allies who feel the constant threat of revanchist Russian aggression. It also authorizes $500 million to provide security assistance to Ukraine, including the defensive lethal assistance the Ukrainians need to defend themselves. The legislation authorizes $65 million for research-and-development program on a ground-launched, intermediate-range missile in order to begin to close the capability gap opened by the Russian violation of the INF Treaty, without placing the United States in violation of the treaty.

In supporting the fight against resurgent terrorism in the Middle East, the NDAA authorizes $1.8 billion in funding for counter-ISIS efforts via the Train and Equip Programs in Iraq and Syria. To support the continued mission in Afghanistan, the legislation authorizes $4.9 billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund. Importantly, the NDAA also authorizes 4,000 additional visas through the special immigration status under the Afghan Allies Protection Act. The legislation also authorizes $705 million for Israeli cooperative missile defense programs.

The NDAA authorizes the Secretary of Defense to establish the Asia- Pacific Stability Initiative, a funding mechanism that has the potential to reshape the U.S. approach to this important region, reassure our allies and partners, and send a resounding message to our potential adversaries about the strength of our commitment. The legislation also authorizes $8.5 billion for

the Missile Defense Agency to strengthen homeland, regional, and space- based missile defense systems. In particular, the legislation authorizes funding for up to 28 additional ground-based interceptors in Alaska, which could be a crucial part of our Nation's defense against a potential North Korea missile threat.

The NDAA would allow our military to embark on an ambitious program of modernization, one that is desperately needed and long overdue. Across the services, this legislation provides funding above the administration's request to meet the list of unfunded priorities from the Department of Defense. Above and beyond the administration's request, the legislation funds 24 more Joint Strike Fighters, 10 more F/A-18 Super Hornets, and 5 additional ships for the Navy. The legislation also authorizes funding for an increase in end strength for the Army and the Marine Corps, adding 6,000 additional soldiers and 1,000 additional marines.

At the same time, as part of rigorous congressional oversight of defense spending, this legislation demands accountability for results, promotes transparency, and protects taxpayer dollars. The legislation identifies targeted reductions to wasteful or underperforming programs, especially those that heavily rely upon software and information technology systems, and reinvests the savings in high-priority needs for the warfighters. The goal, as always, is to ensure our men and women in uniform receive the capabilities they need on time, on schedule, and at a reasonable cost.

The NDAA makes important efforts to correct the glaring and dangerous lack of an effective strategy and policy for the information domain, including cyber, space, and electronic warfare. Without a sufficient response to previous congressional calls for a comprehensive strategy from the executive branch, the NDAA establishes a U.S. policy for cyber deterrence, cyber response, and cyber warfare.

With respect to space, decisionmaking is currently fragmented across more than 60 offices in the Department of Defense--I repeat, 60 offices in the Department of Defense. Funding for space programs is also near 30-year lows, while the threats and our reliance on space are at their highest and growing. This legislation fully funds our space requirements and authorizes additional funding for the military's underfunded priorities for space. The NDAA also establishes a new DOD Chief Information Warfare Officer--a position that would streamline a current bureaucracy that is too often duplicative, inefficient, and ineffective, and instead assigns responsibility and accountability to one leader for all matters relating to the information environment-- including space, cyber security, electronic warfare, and the electromagnetic spectrum.

Finally, the legislation takes several steps to bolster border security and homeland defense. It authorizes $791 million for the Department of Defense Counterdrug Programs. It would authorize and encourage the National Guard to enhance border security capabilities while gaining effective unit and individual training. It continues to support the United States-Israel anti-tunneling cooperation program, which helps to improve our efforts to restrict the flow of drugs across the U.S. southern border.

This is an ambitious piece of legislation. It is one that reflects the growing threats to our Nation. Everything about the NDAA is threat- driven, including the $640 billion topline, which is based on an assessment of the strategic environment rather than an arbitrary adherence to budget agreements that have been overtaken by events.

As we move forward with consideration of this legislation, I stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this important legislation and give our military the resources they need and deserve. We ask a lot of our men and women in uniform, and they never let us down. We must not let them down. Their service represents the best of our country, and this Congress should always honor their sacrifice.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was deeply saddened to hear about the passing of my friend and former colleague, Senator Pete Domenici, a great American who dedicated his life and career to public service. I had the great privilege of serving alongside Pete for many years and knew him as a gentleman who always behaved in the highest traditions of the Senate. Pete was a knowledgeable and pragmatic leader who knew how to reach across the aisle to advance bipartisan solutions to the Nation's biggest problems. Perhaps the best example of his skill for compromise was when he negotiated the Nation's last balanced budget in 1997. Pete represented the very best ideals of the U.S. Senate and left an indelible mark on this Chamber. Cindy and I extend our deepest condolences to Nancy and the entire Domenici family as they mourn the loss of a great man.

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

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the nomination of Dr. Kevin Hassett to be Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Kevin is exceptionally qualified to be Chairman of the CEA, where he will play an integral role in tax reform and shaping this administration's progrowth economic policies.

I have known Kevin for quite some--beginning when he served as the chief economic adviser to my Presidential campaign in 2000. The only time I have doubted his intellect was when he agreed to return to advise for my 2008 Presidential campaign.

He has an extensive economic career spanning multiple administrations, including those of Presidents Clinton and George H.W. Bush. Currently, Kevin works at the American Enterprise Institute, AEI, as the State Farm James Q. Wilson Chair in American Politics and Culture and director of Research for Domestic Policy. Before joining AEI, Kevin served as a senior economist at the Federal Reserve and did a stint at Columbia Business School teaching economics and finance.

To understand fully how smart he is, Kevin's former colleague told me the story of how he printed out a 400-plus page technical paper at the request of Kevin, only to realize he had printed out the original German version rather than an English translation. Without batting an eye, Kevin said ``no problem'' and went about reading the scholarly report in German.

Kevin's nomination has received support from an ideologically diverse group of notable economists, including past CEA Chairmen. Additionally, the Senate Banking Committee approved his nomination by voice vote.

I am pleased to support Kevin's nomination today. I wish him, his lovely wife, Kristie, and their sons, John and Jamie, all of the best in this new chapter of their lives.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Sarkis Tatigian, who will achieve the extraordinary milestone of 75 years of combined military and civilian service to the United States on September 26, 2017. Eligible for retirement since 1973, Mr. Tatigian has continued to honor America through his faithful service. Currently the associate director of the Small Business Programs Office at Naval Sea Systems Command, NAVSEA, Mr. Tatigian is a champion for our Navy, our small business community, and our country.

Mr. Tatigian began his civilian career with the Navy in July 1942 as a junior radio inspector at the naval aircraft factory in the Philadelphia Navy Yard and the Navy Office of Inspector of Naval Aircraft in Linden, NJ. He left his position as an inspector in March 1943 and entered the uniformed Navy as an Active-Duty sailor in April 1943. In June 1944, as an aviation electronics technician's mate, he aided in the development of the Navy's first guided antiship munition, the ASM-N-2 ``BAT'' glide bomb, which later became an operational weapon in January 1945.

In 1943, Mr. Tatigian began his Federal civil service with NAVSEA, where he still works today. Throughout his long career, he has received numerous awards, including the Navy's Superior Civilian Service Award in 2007. In recognition of his exceptional accomplishments in service, the Navy has even named an award after him, the Sarkis Tatigian Small Business Award, which recognizes outstanding performance through organizational culture and command climate.

At 95 years young, Mr. Tatigian's dedication and resolve are inspirational. We can all learn a great deal about service to country and the American spirit from his great example. On behalf of a grateful nation, thank you, Mr. Sarkis Tatigian, for all you have done for our people, our government, and our Navy.

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

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

Mr. President, today, our Nation commemorates the 16th anniversary of the terrorist attacks that took the lives of thousands of innocent Americans. We all join in solemn remembrance of the victims, and our hearts go out to their families.

September 11 is a fitting day for the Senate to begin the consideration of the Defense authorization bill. The anniversary of those horrific terrorist attacks should serve as a reminder of the reason brave, young Americans are currently deployed around the world, fighting on behalf of freedom. I urge my colleagues to keep in mind the meaning of this day throughout the consideration of this important legislation, which will provide our men and women in uniform the resources, equipment, and support they need to keep our Nation safe.

I would like to extend my appreciation to the majority leader for his willingness to move expeditiously to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 and for his leadership.

I would also like to thank the Armed Services Committee ranking member, the Senator from Rhode Island, for his hard work on the NDAA. I remain appreciative of the thoughtfulness and bipartisan spirit with which he approaches national security issues.

The fact is, the NDAA is a piece of legislation in which this body-- Members on both sides of the aisle--can and should take enormous pride. Not only does this legislation provide our men and women in uniform with the resources they need and deserve, but it is a product of an open and bipartisan process that represents the best of the U.S. Senate.

The Senate Armed Services Committee passed the fiscal year 2018 NDAA unanimously by a vote of 27 to 0. I repeat. The Defense authorization bill was passed by a unanimous vote of 27 to 0. That means all 14 Republican members and the 13 Democratic members of the committee voted in favor of this legislation. During the markup, the committee considered and adopted 277 amendments that were offered by both Republicans and Democrats.

Now we hope to consider the legislation under an open amendment process on the floor, which will allow all Senators to have their voices heard. This process, which is exactly how legislation is supposed to make its way through the Senate, has become disappointingly rare. For too long, partisanship and politics have triumphed over principle and policy. This legislation is an opportunity for us to reverse that trend and restore regular order in the U.S. Senate.

The need for this legislation is self-apparent to anyone who is paying attention to today's world. With global terrorist networks, increasing great power competition with Russia and China, malign Iranian influence that is spreading across the Middle East, a North Korean dictator who is racing to acquire missiles that can hit the United States with nuclear weapons, the threats to our national security have not been more complex or daunting than at any time in the past seven decades.

We must also remember that we are a nation at war, with brave young men and women who are deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world. The NDAA is legislation that will deliver to our Armed Forces the resources, equipment, and training they need to meet the increasingly complex challenges of today's world, and it will begin the process of rebuilding our military after years of devastating defense cuts.

Let me point out what happens as a result of these mindless defense cuts, which every military leader has described as devastating to our ability to defend this Nation. Let me just remind you of the hard truth. The state of our military is eroding. We saw disturbing evidence of this reality over the summer as 42 servicemembers tragically perished in accidents during routine--I emphasize routine--training operations.

On June 17, seven sailors were killed when the USS Fitzgerald collided with a containership off the coast of Japan. On July 10, a Marine KC-130 crashed in Mississippi and killed all 16 troops on board. On August 21, 10 sailors perished when the USS McCain collided with a tanker near Singapore. On August 25, an Army Black Hawk helicopter went missing during a training mission off the coast of Yemen, and one soldier died. Just last week in Nevada, two Air Force A-10 aircraft crashed into each other. Thank God the pilots were safely ejected, but the planes were lost--at a cost of over $100 million. For the two Pacific Fleet naval collisions, ship repairs are estimated to cost more than a half a billion dollars. The lives lost in each of these incidents were priceless.

Over the past 3 years, a total of 185 men and women in uniform have been killed in noncombat accidents. During the same time, 44 servicemembers were killed in combat. The bottom line is, we are killing more of our own people in training than our enemies are in combat, and that did not happen by accident. It is a problem that is caused by this mindless sequestration and a lack, frankly, of appreciation by Members of this body and the other one of what the needs are of the men and women who are serving. It is about time that we started listening to our

military leadership who are saying that if we do not change what we are doing in the next 5 years, our enemies--our adversaries--will catch up with us.

This legislation authorizes a base defense budget that, together with the administration's request of $8 billion for other defense activities, supports a total defense budget of $640 billion in funding for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy. The legislation also authorizes $60 billion for overseas contingency operations. In total, the NDAA supports a national defense topline of $700 billion.

This funding is critical to begin addressing the readiness shortfall and modernization crisis caused by the self-inflicted wounds of the Budget Control Act, sequestration, and repeated continuing resolutions. We need look no further than recent headlines, as I mentioned, of fatal incidents during routine training operations for evidence of the deteriorated state of our military.

These ship collisions and aviation accidents are taking the lives of our servicemembers at an alarming rate. In fact, in the last 3 years, we have killed four times as many of our own soldiers in peacetime training operations than our enemies have in combat. While there is plenty of responsibility to go around, we cannot ignore Congress's role. Years of budget cuts have forced our military to try to do too much with too little.

Meanwhile, our adversaries are investing heavily in their own militaries, developing future warfare capabilities intended to erode our military advantage. Simply put, we cannot wait any longer to recapitalize our forces and restore our capabilities.

Another important aspect of the NDAA is that it builds on the reforms this Congress has passed in recent years. By continuing important efforts to reorganize the Department of Defense, spur innovation and defense technology, and improve defense acquisition and business operations, the NDAA seeks to strengthen accountability and streamline the process of getting our warfighters what they need to succeed. At the same time, it prioritizes accountability from the Department and demands the best use of every taxpayer dollar.

The NDAA will also improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform and those who support them. The legislation authorizes a 2.1-percent pay raise for our troops. It improves military family readiness and supports the civilians and contractors who work together with our Armed Forces to achieve the mission.

Finally, the NDAA provides necessary assistance for our allies and partners around the world who are dedicated to advancing the cause of freedom, deterring the aggression of our adversaries, and defeating the scourge of terrorism.

These are the reasons why this legislation is more vital than ever. Congress's most important constitutional responsibility is providing for the common defense. Consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act each year is one of the ways that we live up to that duty.

I guess we are going to have cloture on this bill. We don't need it. We shouldn't have to have it. We should move immediately to this legislation. Those who want to impose blockades to moving forward, to allowing other Members to have their amendments proposed and voted on, are doing the men and women who are serving our Nation a great disservice. The world is in more turmoil than it has been in 70 years. We cannot waste precious time and effort because one Senator has one amendment and he or she is then willing to block the whole process. Let's not do that this year. We can get around it. But what it does is deprive other Members of their ability to debate and have votes on their issues.

So I hope my colleagues, once we vote for cloture, will agree to move forward with the bill. We can finish in the next couple of days, and we can give the American people and the men and women who defend this Nation a product we can be proud of.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, like all of us, I would like to join with our fellow citizens and colleagues in expressing our deep condolences to the victims of Hurricane Harvey. All Americans stand with the people of Texas who have been devastated by this terrible storm as they work to recover and rebuild their communities.

My thoughts and prayers are also with the people of Florida as they prepare for Hurricane Irma. I urge everyone in the path of this horrible storm to pay attention to instructions from local officials to stay safe.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, I am pleased that the legislation before us includes $15 billion in emergency funding to help the people of Texas put their lives back together. Congress should and must provide this needed relief.

In due time, if the devastation of Irma is anywhere near as bad as predicted, obviously I and others will support sending Federal funding to assist the people of Florida with recovery. That is clearly a requirement and function of government.

Madam President, I also support increasing the debt ceiling as a necessary way to prevent default on our government debt. However, I cannot in good conscience support those very important pieces of this legislation if it also means supporting a continuing resolution.

I have come to this floor many times to talk about the harmful effects of continuing resolutions on our military. Year after year, we have lurched from one short-term fix to another without doing the hard work of governing and budgeting. And year after year, I have reminded my colleagues that continuing resolutions are not only no way to fund the government, they inflict great harm upon those Americans we are constitutionally obliged to provide for, and that is our men and women in uniform.

Our defense leaders have also sounded the alarm. For the last several years, our senior military and civilian leaders have come to the Senate Armed Services Committee and asked for the same thing: that Congress provide stable, predictable funding and that we provide it on time. Is that a lot to ask, stable and predictable funding, and providing it on time?

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee this year, Secretary Mattis pointed out that ``during nine of the past ten years, Congress has enacted 30 separate Continuing Resolutions to fund the Department of Defense, thus inhibiting our readiness and adaptation to new challenges.'' He asked Congress to ``pass a FY 2018 budget in a timely manner to avoid yet another harmful Continuing Resolution.''

Let me explain. A continuing resolution just continues and continues at previous years' levels. I will talk about some of the impacts continuing resolutions have had.

The Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunford, also stated that ``without sustained, sufficient, and predictable funding, I assess that within 5 years we will lose our ability to project power; the basis of how we defend the homeland, advance U.S. interests, and meet our alliance commitments.''

My friends and colleagues, that doesn't come from Senator John McCain, it comes from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that without predictable funding, within 5 years, we will lose our ability to project power, the basis of how we defend the homeland, et cetera.

I shouldn't have to remind everyone that threats are on the rise around the world. Global terrorist networks, increasing great power competition with Russia and China, malign Iranian influence spreading across the Middle East, a North Korean dictator racing to acquire missiles that can hit the United States with nuclear weapons--the threats to our national security have not been more complex or daunting than at any time in the past seven decades.

Let us not forget that we are a nation at war. There are brave young men and women serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places. We must always ask ourselves, are we really doing all we can to support them?

There is no point to discussing our strategy for Afghanistan or North Korea or ISIS or any of the other myriad of threats we are currently facing if we are simply going to fund the military through a continuing resolution.

My friends, the state of our military is dire. The overwhelming majority of our forces are not fit for combat in the near term. Three out of our fifty-nine Army brigades are combat-ready. Four of sixty- four Air Force squadrons are ready to ``fight tonight''--that means fully combat ready. Fewer than half of the Marine and Navy planes are ready for combat. The Air Force has a pilot shortfall of 1,500, 1,000 of whom are fighter pilots. The Navy has a maintenance backlog of 5.4 million man-days scheduled for 2017.

The hard truth is, our military is declining. The President of the United States campaigned with a full commitment of rebuilding our military. If we do a continuing resolution, we are not only not rebuilding our military, we are harming our military.

The hard truth is, the military is declining. For evidence of this, we need look no further than all the headlines about ship collisions and aviation accidents during peacetime training operations--incidents that have tragically taken the lives of dozens of our brave men and women in uniform. The incident involving USS McCain, which killed 10 young sailors, is only the latest example.

So how did we get here? How did we get into this position? Uncertain budgets that are consistently late. Continuing to increase the operational tempo for our military despite not having sufficient money to pay for it. Making cuts elsewhere to stay afloat, like training and maintenance. And we are about to do the same thing. Apparently, watching as young men and women die for entirely avoidable reasons seems not to be enough for us to change.

To be sure, while the budget alone will not fix all of the underlying causes of the recent incidents, the military cannot improve without timely and growing budgets. Yet that is exactly what a CR--a continuing resolution--will not provide. A continuing resolution will lock the Department of Defense into last year's funding levels, it will prevent them from reprogramming funding to meet emerging needs, and it will prohibit the start of new programs to modernize for future threats. Perhaps worst of all, a continuing resolution will mandate a level of spending $52 billion less than the President's budget request.

The military cannot fix its readiness problems without more funding. The military cannot grow its forces to meet the expanding requirements of a global threat environment under a continuing resolution. A continuing resolution will not allow our military to modernize its forces to ensure we maintain our strategic advantage over our competitors.

While the President and this Congress understand that the military does have a need for additional funding to rebuild the military, we are asking them to keep treading water for 3 months for no reason whatsoever. A continuing resolution is a crutch we

rely on when we cannot pass actual appropriations bills. It is a temporary solution to avoid the worst possible outcome--a Federal shutdown--and to allow us more time to reach a solution for funding the government.

The majority of us can agree that passing continuing resolutions is not the proper way of funding government. Congress cannot perform oversight by passing continuing resolutions. The Federal Government cannot execute effectively or efficiently when locked into last year's funding bills. Having to pass a continuing resolution, by all accounts, is a failure by the Congress of the United States to fund the Federal Government.

I understand the need to use these from time to time as bipartisan spending agreements are not always easy to come by. What I do not understand is why we are voting on a continuing resolution 3 weeks before the actual start of the next year without having spent any time in the Senate on actually trying to pass an appropriations bill or negotiating a bipartisan budget agreement. How is it that we are voting on a continuing resolution--a mechanism of last resort--before we have even made a single attempt at funding the government?

There has been no discussion of a bipartisan budget deal. There has not even been a fiscal year 2018 budget resolution. We have not called up a single 2018 appropriations bill--not a single one for 2018. Quite simply, we have not been doing our jobs. If we are going to call ourselves the world's greatest deliberative body, we have to do one heck of a lot better. We have 3 weeks before we need to pass fiscal year 2018 funding. Why have we given up before having even tried? We could be spending this month debating a bipartisan budget deal we all know we will now need to pass in December.

Attaching emergency funding for hurricane relief to a must-pass continuing resolution and debt limit increase is irresponsible and a dereliction of our most routine duties. It is the result of yet another self-inflicted--I repeat, self-inflicted--crisis. Instead of returning to the regular order by moving individual spending bills to fund our government and our national security priorities, with ample time for debate and amendments, we are shirking our responsibilities and kicking the can down the road. All of us are responsible for the detriment to the men and women serving in our military during a time of incredible global uncertainty.

I would like to vote to provide assistance to the people of Texas. I cannot vote for another continuing resolution that will harm our men and women in uniform. Quite often, I go to where we have conflicts-- Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries in the region. I can tell you that these young men and women who are serving in uniform, under difficult and challenging circumstances, are not being provided with the support, the weapons, the strategy, or, most of all, the funding that is necessary.

Yes, we have been in this conflict for many years. The main reason the conflict is not over is, we never had a strategy by which to win. Now we have a national security team that has a strategy to win, but they cannot do it without the tools they need to win but also do their best to protect the lives of these young men and women who are literally placing their lives on the line.

Meanwhile, what do we do? We decide that by December 15, maybe we will take up a continuing resolution. We may take certain action. Meanwhile, we are not providing the men and women in the military with what they need not only to win but to do everything we can to ensure that we have provided them with every possible means of protecting their own health and welfare.

I say to my colleagues, we have seen this movie before. We are lurching down the road to December 15--December 8, I think it has been changed to now--when everybody will be eager to get out of town and go home for one's undeserved Christmas holiday break. The point is, today we should be taking up the budget, taking up our appropriations bills, and moving forward. If people want to block it, fine. Then let's stay in tonight. Let's stay in on Friday and Saturday and Sunday. Let's do something really unusual. The men and women who are serving over there, whom we are supposed to be taking care of, do not leave on Thursday afternoon and go back on Monday. They are out there, putting themselves on the line for us every single hour of every single day, and they deserve a lot better than what they are getting from this administration and this Congress, where the Republican Party has the majority.

I urge my colleagues again, Why don't we sit down? Why don't we move forward with these appropriations bills? Why don't we take care of the men and women who are serving? There are so many things we can do for them and for the country that we are not doing today. I urge my colleagues to sit down together, and let's move forward because the American people deserve it, and our oath of office makes it incumbent on us to practice it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor a National Hockey League--NHL--legend, an Olympian, and a point of pride for Arizonans. After 21 seasons, 1,540 games, and 972 points scored, Shane Doan can now retire his skates with pride. A pillar in the Arizona community and a legend to hockey fans worldwide, Shane has left an indelible mark on the game, inspiring future generations of hockey players.

Shane's career started in 1992 in the Western Hockey League's Kamloops Blazers--during which the team won

back-to-back Memorial Cups. The 1995 Memorial Cup secured Shane the Stafford Smythe Memorial Trophy, honoring him as tournament's Most Valuable Player, MVP. Later that year, Shane was picked up by the NHL as a first-round draft pick with the Winnipeg Jets. Shane excelled with the team, who played him in the Stanley Cup, eventually naming him ``Rookie of the Year.''

Shane moved with his team to Phoenix, AZ, where he would remain until the end of his career, the 2016-17 season. Throughout his years as an Arizona Coyote, Shane accomplished many personal awards and franchise records, including selection for the 2006 Canadian Olympic Hockey Team, the King Clancy Trophy in 2009-10, the Mark Messer NHL Leadership Award in 2011-12, and selection for the NHL All-Star Team in 2003-04 and again in 2008-09. In December 2015, Shane secured the franchise record for career goals, at 379 goals, and again in February 2016 for franchise points, at 929 points. Upon his retirement, Shane was the longest serving active captain in the NHL, having lead the Coyotes for 14 years.

As an avid sports fan, I am honored to have had Shane playing for the Arizona Coyotes for 20 years. I have been privileged to get to know Shane over the course of his career and can confidently say that he is a model of leadership and sportsmanship to those around him, both on and off the ice. I join with hockey fans in Arizona and across the world in congratulating Shane on his illustrious career and wish him, his wife, Andrea, and his kids Gracie, Josh, Karys, and Carson all the best as they enter this new chapter of life.

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