Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, while the Democratic leader is still on the floor, I just wanted to mention that I

understand his concern about the healthcare issue and the amendments and the process for moving forward and the necessity for doing so. I made my views very clear; I won't repeat that eloquent speech I made. I would just like to say to my friend from New York that we do have a bill that passed through the committee 27 to 0--not a single person against it--after many days of debate, amendments, discussion, including a couple hundred amendments that were disposed of in the tradition of the Armed Services Committee. I believe it is in everybody's interest to go ahead and take up the Defense bill so that we can go to conference and resolve other issues, such as sequestration, et cetera.

I understand the frustration my friend from New York feels, but where I have a disagreement with my friend from New York is saying that these two issues are inseparable. I believe that our obligation to the men and women in the military is transcendent.

I understand the frustration of the Senator from New York. I was here when, with 60 votes, the bill was rammed through over Republican objections without a single amendment. I understand his frustration.

What the majority leader and I are asking for is just that tomorrow we take up the NDAA bill. We can get it done in a few hours. We can send it to conference, take care of the equipment, training, all of the things the men and women who are serving in the military need.

By the way, I understand the emotion on the other side. I felt the same emotion on this side some years ago, and I haven't forgotten it yet. So I would hope--and I know the Senator from New York has to discuss with his conference this issue of the Defense authorization bill. I would remind him and all of my colleagues that for 53 years now, we have passed and had the President of the United States sign the Defense authorization bill. That is a precedent that I really hope we do not break, because of our obligation to the men and women who are serving in the military. I know the Senator from New York feels exactly the same way.

I am not impugning the integrity of the Senator from New York. I just ask that we consider it. I know the Senator from New York has to go back to his conference. I hope they all will consider it.

Let me just finally say, I note, for example, the Senator from Virginia here on the floor, who has been a vital part of the--no, not the other one; not him. Both have been vital members of the Armed Services Committee. Yes, we have our disputes. Yes, we have our arguments. Yes, we are spirited. But we come out unanimously in favor of taking care of the men and women in the military.

I hope the Senator from New York will consider this.

Yes.

Mr. President, reclaiming my time.

Mr. President, I don't want to continue; our leader has important words to say. All I can say to the Senator from New York is, this is not the same. Defending the Nation is our first priority. That is what our Declaration of Independence says. That is the basis for all of our roles here. There are men and women who are in harm's way today, whose lives are in danger, who need this legislation in order to be better equipped and better able to defend themselves and this Nation.

I am asking for a few hours because, as my two colleagues over there will state, we passed this bill 27 to 0 through the Armed Services Committee. We fight. We argue. We insult. But the fact is, we come out with a product that we are proud of, and then all of us have support.

So all I am asking of the Senator from New York is if we could go off of this for a few hours, because we have basically an agreement on amendments, and get this thing to the President's desk so that he can protect and defend this Nation. That is all I am asking.

Mr. President, very quickly, that is equating these two issues at the same level of concern. I would argue that defending this Nation and the men and women who are serving it is our first priority. I don't wish to debate the Senator from New York.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader for his courtesy, as always.

In just the last 3 years, under Vladimir Putin, Russia has invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, threatened NATO allies, and intervened militarily in Syria, leaving a trail of death, destruction, and broken promises in his wake. Of course, last year Russia attacked the foundations of American democracy with a cyber and information campaign to interfere in America's 2016 election.

I am proud--I am proud--of the two individuals who just spoke, the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Tennessee. Both of them have worked in a bipartisan fashion and got legislation to this floor. Although it is long overdue, it is here. I believe we will see an overwhelming vote, and I thank them for their bipartisanship.

In the last 8 months, what price has Russia paid for attacking American democracy? Very little. This legislation would begin to change that. The legislation would impose mandatory sanctions on transactions with the Russian defense or intelligence sectors, including the FSB and the GRU, and the Russian military intelligence agency which was primarily responsible for Russia's attack on our election.

I believe my colleagues know what is in this. It would codify existing sanctions on Russia by placing into law six Executive orders signed by President Obama in response to both Russian interference in the 2016 election and its illegal actions in Ukraine, and it would take new steps to tighten those sanctions.

The legislation would target the Russian energy sector, which is controlled by Vladimir Putin's cronies, with sanctions on investment in Russian petroleum and natural gas development as well as Russian energy pipelines.

My friends, the United States of America needs to send a strong message to Vladimir Putin and any other aggressor that we will not tolerate attacks on our democracy. That is what this bill is all about. We must take our own side in this fight, not as Republicans, not as Democrats but as Americans.

It is time to respond to Russia's attack on American democracy with strength, with resolve, with common purpose, and with action. I am proud to have played a small role. What I am most proud of is the bipartisanship you are seeing manifested today on both sides of the aisle. We need a little more of it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have stood in this place many times and addressed as ``President'' many Presiding Officers. I have been so addressed when I have sat in that chair, and that is as close as I will ever be to a Presidency. It is an honorific we are almost indifferent too; isn't it? In truth, presiding over the Senate can be a nuisance, a bit of a ceremonial bore, and it is usually relegated to the more junior Members of the majority.

But as I stand here today--looking a little worse for wear, I am sure--I have a refreshed appreciation for the protocols and customs of this body and for the other 99 privileged souls who have been elected to this Senate.

I have been a Member of the U.S. Senate for 30 years. I had another long, if not as long, career before I arrived here, another profession that was profoundly rewarding and in which I had experiences and friendships that I revere. Make no mistake, my service here is the most important job I have had in my life. I am so grateful to the people of Arizona for the privilege--for the honor--of serving here and the opportunities it gives me to play a small role in the history of the country I love.

I have known and admired men and women in the Senate who played much more than a small role in our history--true statesmen, giants of American politics. They came from both parties and from various backgrounds. Their ambitions were frequently in conflict. They held different views on the issues of the day. They often had very serious disagreements about how best to serve the national interest.

But they knew that however sharp and heartfelt their disputes and however keen their ambitions, they had an obligation to work collaboratively to ensure the Senate discharged its constitutional responsibilities effectively. Our responsibilities are important-- vitally important--to the continued success of our Republic. Our arcane rules and customs are deliberatively intended to require broad cooperation to function well at all. The most revered Members of this institution accepted the necessity of compromise in order to make incremental progress on solving America's problems and to defend her from her adversaries.

That principled mindset and the service of our predecessors who possessed it come to mind when I hear the Senate referred to as the world's greatest deliberative body. I am not sure we can claim that distinction with a straight face today. I am sure it wasn't always deserved in previous eras either. I am sure there have been times when it was, and I was privileged to witness some of those occasions.

Our deliberations today, not just our debates but the exercise of all our responsibilities--authorizing government policies, appropriating the funds to implement them, exercising our advice and consent role-- are often lively and interesting. They can be sincere and principled, but they are more partisan, more tribal more of the time than at any time I can remember. Our deliberations can still be important and useful, but I think we would all agree they haven't been overburdened by greatness lately. Right now, they aren't producing much for the American people.

Both sides have let this happen. Let's leave the history of who shot first to the historians. I suspect they will find we all conspired in our decline, either by deliberate actions or neglect. We have all played some role in it. Certainly, I have. Sometimes, I have let my passion rule my reason. Sometimes I made it harder to find common ground because of something harsh I said to a colleague. Sometimes I wanted to win more for the sake of winning than to achieve a contested policy.

Incremental progress, compromises that each side criticizes but also accepts, and just plain muddling through to chip away at problems and to keep

our enemies from doing their worst aren't glamorous or exciting. It doesn't feel like a political triumph. It is usually the most we can expect from our system of government, operating in a country as diverse, quarrelsome, and free as ours.

Considering the injustice and cruelties inflicted by autocratic governments and how corruptible human nature can be, the problem- solving our system does make possible, the fitful progress it produces, and the liberty and justice it preserves, are a magnificent achievement.

Our system doesn't depend on our nobility. It accounts for our imperfections and gives an order to our individual strivings that has helped make ours the most powerful and prosperous society on Earth. It is our responsibility to preserve that, even when it requires us to do something less satisfying than winning, even when we must give a little to get a little, even when our efforts managed just 3 yards in a cloud of dust, while critics on both sides denounced us for timidity, for our failure to triumph.

I hope we can again rely on humility, on our need to cooperate, on our dependence on each other to learn how to trust each other again and, by so doing, better serve the people who elected us. Stop listening to the bombastic loudmouths on the radio and television and the internet. To hell with them. They don't want anything done for the public good. Our incapacity is their livelihood.

Let's trust each other. Let's return to regular order. We have been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle. That is an approach that has been employed by both sides: mandating legislation from the top down, without any support from the other side, with all the parliamentary maneuvers it requires. We are getting nothing done, my friends. We are getting nothing done.

All we have really done this year is confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Our healthcare insurance system is a mess. We all know it, those who support ObamaCare and those who oppose it. Something has to be done. We Republicans have looked for a way to end it and replace it with something else without paying a terrible political price. We haven't found it yet. I am not sure we will. All we have managed to do is make more popular a policy that wasn't very popular when we started trying to get rid of it. I voted for the motion to proceed to allow debate to continue and amendments to be offered.

I will not vote for this bill as it is today. It is a shell of a bill right now. We all know that. I have changes urged by my State's Governor that will have to be included to earn my support for final passage of any bill. I know many of you will have to see the bill changed substantially for you to support it. We have tried to do this by coming up with a proposal behind closed doors in consultation with the administration, then springing it on skeptical Members, trying to convince them it is better than nothing--that it is better than nothing--asking us to swallow our doubts and force it past a unified opposition. I don't think that is going to work in the end and probably shouldn't.

The administration and congressional Democrats shouldn't have forced through Congress, without any opposition support, a social and economic change as massive as ObamaCare, and we shouldn't do the same with ours. Why don't we try the old way of legislating in the Senate--the way our rules and customs encourage us to act. If this process ends in failure, which seems likely, then let's return to regular order. Let the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, under Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray, hold hearings, try to report a bill out of committee with contributions from both sides--something that my dear friends on the other side of the aisle didn't allow to happen 9 years ago. Let's see if we can pass something that will be imperfect, full of compromises, and not very pleasing to implacable partisans on either side but that might provide workable solutions to problems Americans are struggling with today.

What have we to lose by trying to work together to find those solutions? We are not getting much done apart. I don't think any of us feels very proud of our incapacity. Merely preventing your political opponents from doing what they want isn't the most inspiring work. There is greater satisfaction in respecting our differences but not letting them prevent agreements that don't require abandonment of core principles; agreements made in good faith, that help improve lives and protect the American people. The Senate is capable of that. We know that. We have seen it before. I have seen it happen many times. And the times when I was involved, even in a modest way with working on a bipartisan response to a national problem or threat, are the proudest moments of my career and by far the most satisfying.

This place is important. The work we do is important. Our strange rules and seemingly eccentric practices that slow our proceedings and insist on our cooperation are important. Our Founders envisioned the Senate as the more deliberative, careful body that operates at a greater distance than the other body from the public passions of the hour. We are an important check on the powers of the Executive. Our consent is necessary for the President to appoint jurists and powerful government officials and, in many respects, to conduct foreign policy. Whether or not we are of the same party, we are not the President's subordinates, we are his equal.

As his responsibilities are onerous, many, and powerful, so are ours. We play a vital role in shaping and directing the judiciary, the military, and the Cabinet; in planning and supporting foreign and domestic policies. Our success in meeting all these awesome constitutional obligations depends upon cooperation among ourselves.

The success of the Senate is important to the continued success of America. This country--this big, boisterous, brawling, intemperate, restless, striving, daring, beautiful, bountiful, brave, good, and magnificent country--needs us to help it thrive. That responsibility is more important than any of our personal interests or political affiliations. We are the servants of a great nation, ``a . . . nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.'' More people have lived free and prosperous lives here than in any other Nation. We have acquired unprecedented wealth and power because of our governing principles, and because our government defended those principles.

America has made a greater contribution than any other nation to an international order that has liberated more people from tyranny and poverty than ever before in history. We have been the greatest example, the greatest supporter, and the greatest defender of that order. We aren't afraid. We don't covet other people's land and wealth. We don't hide behind walls. We breach them. We are a blessing to humanity.

What greater cause could we hope to serve than helping keep America the strong, aspiring, inspirational beacon of liberty and defender of dignity of all human beings and their right to freedom and equal justice? That is the cause that binds us and is so much more powerful and worthy than the small differences that divide us.

What a great honor and extraordinary opportunity it is to serve in this body. It is a privilege to serve with all of you. I mean it. Many of you have reached out in the last few days with your concern and your prayers. It means a lot to me. It really does. I have had so many people say such nice things about me recently that I think some of you must have me confused with someone else. I appreciate it, though, every word, even if much of it isn't deserved.

I will be here for a few days--I hope managing the floor debate on the Defense authorization bill, which I am proud to say is again a product of bipartisan cooperation and trust among the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. After that, I am going home for a while to treat my illness. I have every intention of returning here and giving many of you cause to regret all the nice things you said about me, and I hope to impress on you again that it is an honor to serve the American people in your company.

Thank you, fellow Senators.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. President, let me begin by reviewing the threats the United States is facing around the world today. The campaign against ISIS is far from over. We must build on the success of retaking Mosul and ensure an enduring defeat of terrorist threats in Iraq and Syria and throughout the region.

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. China continues to militarize the South China Sea and modernize its own military at an alarming rate. North Korea gets ever closer to developing the capability to strike the U.S. homeland with a nuclear- armed missile.

I could spend a lot of time going through all of the threats we face. We are at war. We are at war. There are brave young men and women serving in Afghanistan, as I speak. Some of them have been wounded and killed. We must always ask ourselves: Are we really doing all we can to support them?

Our military is facing a crisis. Years of budget cuts from this Congress have failed our men and women in uniform. In order to rebuild the military, the Pentagon needs to ramp up readiness programs and embark on an ambitious plan for modernization to make sure our servicemembers are given the training, resources, and capabilities they need. To do that, the Department of Defense must have senior leadership.

The position of Deputy Secretary of State is one of the most critical positions in our government. It is essentially the chief operating officer of the largest, most complex organization in the world--the Department that is entrusted with ensuring our national security.

Patrick Shanahan is a well-qualified nominee who passed out of the Armed Services Committee on a voice vote. This body voted overwhelmingly, 98 to 1, to confirm General Mattis as Secretary of Defense. He had our overwhelming support to lead the Department during challenging times. Yet we have not given Secretary Mattis the senior leadership he needs to help him do his job.

Tomorrow, I say to my colleagues, the current Deputy Secretary of Defense, Bob Work, will leave his office. There simply is no more time to delay moving the nomination of Patrick Shanahan. You can choose to vote no, you can choose to vote yes, but let's just vote. The obstruction has gone on long enough, and it has to stop.

I wish to say, I understand the frustration my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel with the process we have been through, particularly on the issue of healthcare. The issue of healthcare should have gone through

the relevant committees. It should have had amendments, it should have had debate, it should have had discussion, and maybe we could have passed something going through the regular order, and we didn't. I understand the frustration my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are feeling. I felt the same thing in 2009 when we did ObamaCare, basically on the same basis. Yet amnesia seems to have set in here or new Members are not remembering or care.

What is going on in this body, unfortunately, these days is plagued by partisanship and politics. This is a time to put aside all of that for the sake of our national security and come together as Republicans and Democrats to move this nomination. Our men and women in uniform deserve no less.

Let me say again to my friend from New York, whom I have enjoyed doing battle with for many years, he is a man of honesty and integrity and a man of his word. I understand his frustration, and I understand the frustration on the other side of the aisle because we felt the same thing.

I would again ask the indulgence of the leader of the Democrat Party on the other side to at least consider this unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Executive Calendar No. 157, the nomination of Patrick Shanahan to be Deputy Secretary of Defense; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Before the Democratic leader leaves, may I ask one more?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5 p.m. on Monday, July 17, the Senate proceed to executive session for consideration of Executive Calendar No. 157. I further ask that there be 30 minutes of debate on the nomination equally divided in the usual form and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate, and that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Before I ask for a ruling on that, may I just say that the Senator from New York has a legitimate comment. Why in the world we would be wasting time on the Ambassador to Japan when we have the Department of Defense nominees in line is something I can neither account for, nor can I condone. So I understand the frustration of the Senator from New York.

Maybe sometime after our 2 weeks in August, perhaps some of us ought to sit down and talk and work out an agenda. We have a train wreck coming, as the Senator from New York knows. We have the debt limit. We have appropriations bills to pass. We have all these things piling up, we have about 30 days to do it in, and so far, I have seen no plan to address these challenges.

The only way we are going to address some of these challenges, I say to my colleagues, with their partisanship and anger and dislike of anybody who lives over there, the fact is that we need to work together to work these things out, and we can do it without betraying principle, but we can also do it by understanding the priorities and the dedication and patriotism of those on the other side of the aisle.

So I understand the Senator from New York. I don't agree with the Senator from New York, but I understand his frustration. So I renew my consent request.

May I ask one more question of the Democratic leader? When would Mr. Shanahan's nomination be in order?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Open America's Waters Act of 2017. This bill would repeal the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, better known as the Jones Act, an archaic and burdensome law that hinders free trade, stifles the economy and ultimately hurts consumers, largely for the benefit of labor unions. If this legislation becomes law, U.S. shippers will no longer be required to patronize market inefficiency but rather, effectively leverage the global shipping market.

As many of my colleagues know, the Jones Act is one of many of laws passed over time that addresses port-to-port coastal shipping, drafted in order to protect the U.S. domestic shipping industry. While the Jones Act may have had some rationale back in the 1920s when it was enacted, today it serves only to raise shipping costs, making U.S. farmers and businesses less competitive in the global marketplace and increasing costs for American consumers. This protectionist mentality directly contradicts the lessons our nation has learned about the many benefits of a free and open market. Repeatedly, it has been proven that trade liberalization has created

jobs, expanded economic growth and provided consumers with access to lower cost goods and services.

The forced purchase of American vessels combined with the immense cost associated with U.S. shipbuilding has forced U.S. shippers to act against their best interests to the detriment of their businesses. While foreign-built coastal-sized ships typically cost between $25-30 million, a U.S.-made ship of the same size can cost anywhere between $190-250 million. A repeal of the Jones Act, over time, would have broad impact. According to a 2002 U.S. International Trade Commission study, repealing the Jones Act would lower shipping costs by about 22 percent. The Commission also found that repealing the Jones Act would have an annual positive effect of $656 million on the overall U.S. economy. Though this decade-and-a-half-old study provides some of the most recent statistics available, it is not hard to imagine the modern affect that maritime deregulation would contribute to this industry.

Congress must take action to repeal laws that have outlived their usefulness and are no longer relevant to modern commerce. It is unacceptable that millions of dollars in the U.S. economy are lost every year to an antiquated policy, and unacceptable that this body is unable to disengage from special interests in order to participate in a productive debate on this issue. I encourage my colleagues to reflect on our responsibility as lawmakers and see the Jones Act for what it really is: an outdated and protectionist policy that only serves to harm the American economy and consumer.

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Open America's Waters Act of 2017. This bill would repeal the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, better known as the Jones Act, an archaic and burdensome law that hinders free trade, stifles the economy and ultimately hurts consumers, largely for the benefit of labor unions. If this legislation becomes law, U.S. shippers will no longer be required to patronize market inefficiency but rather, effectively leverage the global shipping market.

As many of my colleagues know, the Jones Act is one of many of laws passed over time that addresses port-to-port coastal shipping, drafted in order to protect the U.S. domestic shipping industry. While the Jones Act may have had some rationale back in the 1920s when it was enacted, today it serves only to raise shipping costs, making U.S. farmers and businesses less competitive in the global marketplace and increasing costs for American consumers. This protectionist mentality directly contradicts the lessons our nation has learned about the many benefits of a free and open market. Repeatedly, it has been proven that trade liberalization has created

jobs, expanded economic growth and provided consumers with access to lower cost goods and services.

The forced purchase of American vessels combined with the immense cost associated with U.S. shipbuilding has forced U.S. shippers to act against their best interests to the detriment of their businesses. While foreign-built coastal-sized ships typically cost between $25-30 million, a U.S.-made ship of the same size can cost anywhere between $190-250 million. A repeal of the Jones Act, over time, would have broad impact. According to a 2002 U.S. International Trade Commission study, repealing the Jones Act would lower shipping costs by about 22 percent. The Commission also found that repealing the Jones Act would have an annual positive effect of $656 million on the overall U.S. economy. Though this decade-and-a-half-old study provides some of the most recent statistics available, it is not hard to imagine the modern affect that maritime deregulation would contribute to this industry.

Congress must take action to repeal laws that have outlived their usefulness and are no longer relevant to modern commerce. It is unacceptable that millions of dollars in the U.S. economy are lost every year to an antiquated policy, and unacceptable that this body is unable to disengage from special interests in order to participate in a productive debate on this issue. I encourage my colleagues to reflect on our responsibility as lawmakers and see the Jones Act for what it really is: an outdated and protectionist policy that only serves to harm the American economy and consumer.

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, as we know, yesterday the majority leader announced that he plans to delay the start of the August recess by 2 weeks. He stated that this delay is necessary in order to ``complete action on important legislative items and process nominees that have been stalled by a lack of cooperation from our friends on the other side of the aisle.'' Those are the majority leader's words.

I have no problem with the leader's decision. I will happily stay here an additional 2 weeks. I will stay 3, 4, or even 5 weeks as long as we have a plan to address the serious issues that face this Nation.

My friends, when the Senate completes its work this week, we will have considered a whopping total this entire week of three nominations, one of them being a noncontroversial district judge nominee on which the majority leader was forced to file cloture. That cloture vote was unanimous, 97 to 0. Yet we were still forced to burn postcloture time-- 30 hours--before being allowed to vote earlier today on his confirmation--a vote that was again unanimous at 100 to 0. What? That is the way we are doing business in the Senate? I will repeat. The vote to stop debate was 97 to 0 after 30 hours. After we burned 30 hours, then we were allowed to vote earlier today--a vote that was again unanimous at 100 to 0. Why?

We have a war on. We have men and women in harm's way. We have nominees stacked up, and so we are spending an entire week with three nominees. So with an incredible act of another chapter in ``Profiles in Courage,'' rather than say, OK, we will stay here

Friday, we will stay here Saturday, we will stay here Sunday, but by God we are going to do the people's business--we are not doing the people's business.

I can't go through all the machinations between the Democratic leader and our majority leader, and I can't go through all the tos and fros and all of that, but I am supposed to go back and speak to a high school civics class and say: I am happy to be here. I have had a very tough week this week in the Senate, my young friends who may want to be engaged in public service someday, and we voted on a district judge 97 to 0. Thirty hours later, we were allowed to vote on his nomination, and the vote was 100 to 0.

That is what the Senate is supposed to do? There was no reason why we needed to take 3 days on this nominee.

I say to my friend the Democratic leader and I say to the Republican leader: This type of obstruction has gone on long enough, and it has to stop.

As I said, I am happy to stay here for the entire August recess to do the work the American people sent us here to do, but we must first have a plan of what we are going to do and how. What are we to say to the American people if we stay here for several weeks, have no legislative plan, and accomplish nothing? We have been in for 6 months now. What have we done? We have done Gorsuch, and we have done Gorsuch, and we have done Gorsuch, and we have repealed some regulations--all of it with my party in control of all three branches of government. I am not proud to go back to Arizona and talk about that record of nonaccomplishment.

Right now, we have no consensus on how to repeal and replace the failed policies of ObamaCare. I can't tell you the number of hours I have heard the same arguments go around and around and around and around. As far as I know, there is no consensus on how to best fund the government, no plan to do a bipartisan budget deal, and no path forward on appropriations bills. This is disgraceful.

What I am asking for is simple. If we are going to stay here to work, then let's get some work done. Why aren't we working now? Why aren't we working tonight? There are nominees in the Department of Defense who are before this body, and we are in a war, and what are we doing? We are doing a vote on a district judge that we took 30 hours--30 hours-- to discuss.

If we are going to stay here, let's get the work done. Let's come in early, stay late, negotiate a healthcare bill, and process nominations to make sure the administration is adequately staffed so the executive branch can function. Let's renew FDA user fees to streamline the regulatory process for lifesaving prescription drugs. Let's fund the Veterans Choice Program to ensure our veterans are able to access care in their communities. Let's address the debt limit before we default on our payments. Let's debate, amend, and pass the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act. Perhaps, most importantly, let's get to work on the budget so we can begin moving individual appropriations bills to fund the government and not have to resort to a continuing resolution or omnibus.

To those who may be watching, the fact is that a continuing resolution and an omnibus means that we have two choices--yes or no. We don't have an amendment. We don't have a way to improve it. We are talking about trillions of dollars, but we are going to wait until we are right at the edge of the cliff, and then my distinguished friends and leaders on both sides will say: You have to vote aye; you have to vote aye because the government is going to be shut down. I am tired of that choice. We know it is coming. We know the cliff is here. So what did we do this week? We spent 30 hours discussing a district judge--30 hours debating a district judge. Is that the right use of American taxpayers' dollars?

Have we no shame?

The Senate Armed Services Committee successfully reported out the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act 27 to 0, supporting $650 billion for the base budget for national defense and an additional $60 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations. At these levels, the national defense budget would be $91 billion above the Budget Control Act spending cap. To put it another way, there was unanimous, bipartisan support for an increase in defense spending of the Budget Control Act, capped by more than a quarter of this body--more than a quarter of this body, on both sides of the aisle. In one sense this consensus isn't surprising because after years of budget cuts under the BCA sequestration, our military faces a serious crisis. As we ask them to do more and more in an increasingly dangerous world, Congress has failed to provide our men and women in uniform with the training, resources, and capabilities they need.

I will repeat that. Congress has failed to provide our men and women in uniform with the training, resources, and capabilities they need.

However, simply passing an authorization bill at higher defense spending levels will not solve the funding problems for our military. We know we must pass a bipartisan budget deal to undo the Budget Control Act caps and set an agreed upon budget top line to allow the appropriations bills to move forward. Absent a bipartisan budget deal, we will be stuck with another continuing resolution, which, I might add, will be below the BCA budget caps for defense, or, worse, we will be facing--guess what--a shutdown of the government.

Has it been that long since we had the last shut down?

I have come to this floor several times already this year demanding that we start negotiating a budget deal. We are 2 months away from the start of the fiscal year. We know that a budget deal must be done. The failure to begin negotiations means we are knowingly driving toward an outcome that will fund our military at levels below the Budget Control Act caps.

I don't understand why we haven't started. It is not because we think the BCA levels are acceptable. It is not because we believe there is a way to responsibly fund the government without adjusting the BCA caps. Even our leader, Senator McConnell, has publicly stated that we will need to adjust the caps. This leads me to believe that there is only one reason why we are stalling negotiations on a budget deal and forcing the government and our military to start the year on a ``continuing resolution'' and that is one word, and that word is ``politics.''

The same tactic that the Democratic leader is employing on nomination stalling is being applied to a budget deal. I find that to be shameful.

There is plenty of blame to go around. The White House has also been surprisingly absent. Their own budget submission asked for defense spending above the budget control caps and repeal of the defense sequester, but none of that--none of that--is possible without negotiating a bipartisan budget deal. Yet we have heard nothing from the White House--nothing. Any budget deal that would pass both the House and Senate and be signed by the President will be extremely difficult to negotiate. That is why we should have started long ago, and we must start now.

I have been ready and willing all year to begin working. My door and, I know, the majority of my colleagues' doors are open to any Senator, Republican or Democrat, but what we really need is for a select group of key Members to come together with leadership's blessings to begin negotiating.

Unless and until this body gets to work on a bipartisan budget deal, we will continue down the path we have been on for years, lurching from crisis to crisis, with no strategy for how to meet our budget responsibilities or fund our national security needs.

My friends, colleagues, and fellow Americans, we must summon the political courage to do the hard work the American people expect of us to do a budget the way we are supposed to--a budget that is sufficient to meet the complex threats of today's world. Our brave servicemembers who are facing those threats every single day deserve no less.

Finally, every year for many years now, I have taken my time on the Fourth of July to have the honor of spending that national holiday in Afghanistan with the men and women who are serving in the military with courage, sacrifice, and skill. As part of our activities there, we have a townhall meeting with several hundred of the men and women in uniform who are serving. My friend Lindsey Graham,

who occasionally has a good idea--once every decade--asked the group: How many of you are here not for the first time? Almost everybody in that room raised their hand.

He said: How many of you have been more than twice? Two-thirds of the men in that room raised their hand.

He said: How many of you have been here multiple times? A good number of them raised their hand.

The point is that they are out there serving time after time after time, away from their homes, away from their families, working more than maybe 2 weeks in August. And what are we doing? What are we doing for them?

There are a lot of things they need, and there are a lot of things we need to give them. Yet, somehow, we can't see our way clear-- Republicans and Democrats--to sit down and do the right thing for these men and women--to do the right thing so they can win.

We now have a new President, a new National Security Advisor, and a new Secretary of Defense. I don't agree with this President very often, but I do know that this President is committed to rebuilding the military and a winning strategy. The strategy for the last 8 years has been ``don't lose.'' I know that General Mattis and General McMaster are people who want to win, and they have a strategy to win, and we have to be of assistance to them to provide the men and women with what they need to win.

So I ask my colleagues, with passion, that we sit down and figure out the budget deal, move forward with it, and not spend a week like we just spent this week with 30 hours in order to confirm one district judge.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Dr. Benjamin Tuggle who served as the regional director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's southwest region. A skilled communicator and accomplished biologist, Dr. Tuggle dedicated more than 38 years of service to advancing the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

I had the opportunity to work directly with Dr. Tuggle on a number of issues important to Arizona, including restoring the Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery, which is a key economic asset for Lower Colorado River communities. We may not have always agreed on agency policies, but Dr. Tuggle maintained an open dialogue and willingness to engage directly with local communities.

The challenges faced by the service and Region 2 are daunting. Our unique southwest landscape and wildlife are under constant threat from oppressive drought and catastrophic wildfire. Dr. Tuggle was rarely presented with easy decisions to make, but he always labored to strike the right balance between competing interests on complex issues. I thank him for his service.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess, following my and Senator Nelson's remarks, until 5 p.m. for the all-Senators briefing and that the time count postcloture.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak on issues not associated with the present subject of debate.

Mr. President, last week, the Senate voted 97 to 2 to strengthen sanctions against Vladimir Putin's Russia for its attack on America's 2016 election and its other aggressive and illegal behavior. I hope the other body will take swift action to send this legislation to the President's desk.

We need strong Russia sanctions now because it has been 8 months since the U.S. intelligence community said publicly that the Russian Government directed this attack on our democracy. Yet, in the last 8 months, the Russian Government has hardly paid any price for its aggression. Thus, Vladimir Putin has been learning all over again that aggression pays. He learned that in Georgia in 2008. He learned that in Ukraine in 2014. He has learned that in Syria since 2015. So Vladimir Putin remains on the offense. This year, Russia attempted to interfere in France's election. We have already seen attempts to influence German public opinion ahead of elections in September. And there is every expectation that Russia will do the same thing in the Czech Republic, Italy, and elsewhere in future elections.

But perhaps the most disturbing indication of how far Vladimir Putin is willing to go to advance his dark and dangerous view of the world is what happened in October 2016 in the small Balkan country of Montenegro, when Russian intelligence operatives, in league with Serbia nationalists and others, attempted to overthrow the democratically elected Government of Montenegro and murder its Prime Minister on the country's election day. Why would Vladimir Putin go this far? To answer this, one must understand why Russia was so interested in the outcome of Montenegro's election.

Russia opposes the spread of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law across Europe, which is advanced by the European Union and protected by the NATO alliance. To Russia's great frustration, Montenegro's Government had committed the country to a Euro-Atlantic future and pursued membership in both the EU and NATO.

Indeed, NATO's invitation to Montenegro to join the NATO alliance in December 2015 was considered particularly insulting and threatening by Moscow. After all, Montenegro had once been part of Russia's traditional Slavic ally, Serbia. Montenegro has long been a favorite destination for Russian tourists. Russian politicians and oligarchs are reported to own as much as 40 percent of the real estate in that country. A few years ago, when it feared losing its naval base in Syria due to the civil war, Russia reportedly sought a naval base in Montenegro but was rejected. Now, if Montenegro joined NATO, the entire Adriatic Sea would fall completely within NATO's borders.

Montenegro's accession into NATO would also send a signal that NATO membership was a real possibility for other nations of the Western Balkans--Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and, according to some optimistic voices in the region, perhaps even Serbia.

That is why Montenegro's October 16 election was no ordinary one. In Russia's eyes, it was a last chance to stop Montenegro from joining NATO, to thwart Montenegro's pursuit of a Euro-Atlantic future, and to reassert Russian influence in southeastern Europe. That is why there was little doubt that Russia would exert heavy pressure on Montenegro ahead of the election. Russia had already been accused of fomenting anti-government demonstrations and funding opposition parties. Yet few would have guessed how far Russia was willing to go. But now we know.

This April, as part of my visit to seven countries in southeastern Europe to reaffirm America's commitment to the region, I visited Montenegro and was briefed by Montenegrin officials on

the status of the investigation into the coup attempt. On April 14, Montenegro's special prosecutor filed indictments against 2 Russians and 12 other people for their roles in the coup attempt. This past weekend, a Montenegrin court accepted the indictments. As a result, the evidence before the court is now public.

I believe it is critically important that my colleagues and the American people are aware of the allegations made in these indictments. Pieced together, they reveal another blatant attack on democracy by the Russian Government--an attempt to smash a small, brave country that had the nerve to defy its will. And it is another unmistakable warning that Vladimir Putin will do whatever it takes to achieve his ambition to restore the Russian Empire.

According to the indictments, the coup planning got off to a slow start in March 2016. That was when opposition leaders in Montenegro allegedly sent an emissary known as Nino to Belgrade to meet with Slavko Nikic. In the first meeting at Slavko's office, Nino said that he had been doing business for years in Russia, and he claimed that he was in contact with powerful men in Russia. He claimed that one of the men with him was a Russian FSB agent in charge of special tasks. Nino tried to enlist Slavko and his men to lead a plot to destabilize Montenegro, and Slavko indicated he was able and willing to participate. Later, Nino and Slavko met on the Pupin Bridge in Belgrade, this time with the supposed FSB agent in tow. The Russian told Slavko it would be good if he traveled to Moscow.

After these encounters in Belgrade, Nino enlisted the help of Bratislav Dikic, the former chief of Serbia's special police and someone we will meet later in this story, to use his contacts to check into Slavko's reliability. He didn't pass the test, and this original version of the coup plot was abandoned.

It was at this point that the two Russians, Eduard Shishmakov and Vladimir Popov, stepped in to take control of the plans for destabilization operations in Montenegro. Both of these men are believed to be members of the Russian military agency, the GRU.

Shishmakov in particular already had a colorful past. In 2014, Shishmakov had been serving as deputy military attache in Russia's Embassy in Warsaw, Poland. After a scandal involving a Russian spy network within the Polish Government, the Polish Government identified Shishmakov as a GRU agent, declared him persona non grata, and ejected him from Poland.

Having taken over the Montenegrin operation, Shishmakov moved quickly to contact Sasa Sindjelic. The two had first met in Russia back in 2014, when they discussed their opposition to the EU and NATO. Shishmakov even offered to help support Sindjelic's organization, the Serbian Wolves, which promotes Pan-Slavism and close relations between Russians and Serbs and opposes NATO and the Government of Montenegro.

The two met again in Moscow in 2015. This time, Shishmakov had Sindjelic submitted to a polygraph test that lasted for hours. After the test went well, he sent Sindjelic home with $5,000 and a promise to contact him if something urgent came up. That was in the spring of 2016. Shishmakov wrote that Montenegro's Prime Minister, Milo Djukanovic, and his government must be removed immediately and that the people of Montenegro must rebel in order for this to happen.

Then in September 2016, Shishmakov told Sindjelic to urgently come to Moscow. Shishmakov even sent $800 to Sindjelic to buy his ticket. It was no trouble for Shishmakov to send the money--after all, he sent it from a Western Union conveniently located on the same street as GRU headquarters in Moscow. Once in Moscow, Shishmakov and Sindjelic discussed the planning and operation of the plot to overthrow the Montenegrin Government, install the opposition in power, and abandon all plans for Montenegro to enter NATO. Shishmakov said opposition leaders from Montenegro had already visited Moscow a number of times and were in agreement with the plan.

In total, Sindjelic received more than $200,000 to support the operation. He used those funds to pay personnel, acquire police uniforms and equipment, and purchase weapons, including rifles, gas masks, bulletproof vests, electrical tranquilizers, and a drone with a camera. He was also provided encrypted phones to enable secure communications between the coup plotters and GRU agents.

Sindjelic and Shishmakov stayed in close touch as preparations continued ahead of the October elections. The plan was this:

On election day, the Montenegrin opposition was planning large protests in front of the Parliament, expecting to draw nearly 5,000 people. Sindjelic and his coconspirators, including Bratislav Dikic, the former commander of the Serbian special police, would recruit as many Serbian nationalists as they could to travel from Serbia to Montenegro to join the demonstrations. They were hoping 500 would join the protests and be ready to act when called upon.

As the protests were underway, a group of 50 armed men recruited by Shishmakov and wearing police uniforms provided by Sindjelic would ambush and kill the members of Montenegro's Special Anti-Terrorist Unit to prevent them from interfering with the coup. The armed men, still wearing their police uniforms, would then proceed to the Parliament building, where they would begin shooting at members of the police defending the Parliament building. They hoped to create the impression that some members of the police were changing sides and joining the protesters against the government. As the coup plotters saw it, this was poetic justice--reminiscent of how former Serbian President and convicted war criminal Slobodan Milosevic had fallen from power.

Led by the coup plotters and the Serbian nationalists, who would wear blue ribbons to be recognizable to one another, the protesters would then storm the Parliament building and declare victory for the opposition. Within 48 hours, the new government would be formed and arrests would be made across the capital, including Prime Minister Djukanovic. If the Prime Minister could not be captured, he would be killed.

The coup plotters obviously wanted to create chaos, and it appears they may have had someone in mind to blame for the violence. Ahead of the election, the Montenegrin opposition hired a U.S. company to provide services, including countersurveillance and planning to extract personnel from the Montenegrin capital, around the time of the election. It is still unclear, the precise nature of this outreach to the U.S. company by the Montenegrin opposition or what services the company may have ended up providing, if any. Now, this is speculation, but if I know the Russians, American security personnel--some likely to have military or intelligence background--on the ground during the coup in the Montenegrin capital would have made excellent patsies for stories on Sputnik and Russia Today.

Fortunately--one might even say luckily--the plan never got off the ground. Four days before election day, one of the coup plotters got cold feet and informed the Montenegrin authorities. On election day, Montenegrin police arrested 20 Serbian citizens, including the on-the- ground leader of the nationalist protesters, Bratislav Dikic, the former commander of the Serbian special police. News of the arrests sparked fear among others involved in the plot, many of whom retreated to Serbia.

Furious that the plot had been disrupted, Shishmakov, the Russian GRU agent, grasped at straws for new ways of bringing down the Montenegrin Government. He ordered Sindjelic to procure an assassin to kill the Prime Minister. Sindjelic did not carry out that order and later turned himself into police, fearing he would be next for assassination by the

Mr. President, every indication, I would say to my friend from Florida, a most valued member of the Armed Services Committee, they will continue to try to interfere in any election they possibly can. They are spending large amounts of money. They have certainly, to some degree, undermined confidence between countries in the NATO alliance, and that, coupled with the degree of uncertainty here in Washington, has probably put as great a strain on the NATO alliance as you have seen since its very beginning. I thank my colleague from Florida.

Mr. President, I would just say to my colleague from Florida that when you look at their early attempts versus their latest attempts, they learn with every experience. It is a lot easier--as my colleague from Florida knows, it is a lot easier to play offense than defense.

We are going to have a hearing on this whole Montenegrin thing, and I know the Senator from Florida will play a very significant role. Every time we turn around, we have a new revelation of some of the activities that have been carried out, not just by Russian hackers but by Chinese, by Iranian, even by single individuals. This is probably the national security challenge that may not be the greatest, but I would say we are the least prepared for.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to congratulate Larry Voyles, the former executive director of the Arizona Game and Fish Department, for his 40 years of dedicated service to the State of Arizona and the Nation.

Larry recently retired from the helm of my home State's wildlife management agency. He leaves with a litany of accolades and achievements that underscore a remarkable career. During his time at the department, Larry also served in a variety of national posts that advanced Federal policies important to outdoor sports and wildlife conservation, including as president of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Larry first began at the department as a district manager and eventually ascended to become the agency's top training officer and later a regional director before being selected by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission to serve as the executive director for the past 8 years.

Faced with daunting challenges like regional drought and catastrophic wildfires, Larry proved time and again that the department understands how to care for the land and the large variety of animal life in the Grand Canyon State. Larry also knows the importance of safeguarding a State's right to manage wildlife populations without undue interference from the Federal Government, and he remains a tireless advocate for sportsmen community and those pursuing meaningful wildlife conservation.

I thank Larry, my friend, for his honorable service at the Arizona Department of Game and Fish and wish him the best in his future endeavors.

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

Mr. President, today I honor a superb leader, liaison, and warrior. After more than 2 years of service as Director of the Navy Senate Liaison Office, CAPT Sara Annette Joyner is very deservedly moving on and moving up to assume the responsibilities of a rear admiral, lower half. On this occasion, I believe it is fitting to recognize Captain Joyner's distinguished service and dedication to fostering the relationship between the U.S. Navy and this Chamber.

Captain Joyner is a 1989 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. An attack pilot by designation, Captain Joyner has not only been training and teaching to fight aerial adversaries, she has been attacking history. Call sign ``Clutch,'' Captain Joyner is a groundbreaking leader, as the Navy's first female strike fighter squadron commanding officer at VFA-105 and the first female Carrier Air Wing Commander at CVW-3 aboard the USS Harry S. Truman. Captain Joyner has held numerous other leadership positions in the Navy, including assignment as the joint strike fighter requirements officer, with the CNO's strategic studies group, and most recently as director, Navy Senate liaison, from 2015 to 2017.

Over the course of the last 3 years, Captain Joyner has led 37 Congressional Delegations to 47 different countries. She has escorted 44 Members of Congress and over 48 personal and professional staff members. I have had the pleasure of traveling with Captain Joyner on many of these trips. She has distinguished herself by going above and beyond the call of duty to facilitate and successfully execute each and every trip, despite any number of weather, aircraft, and diplomatic complications.

This Chamber will feel Captain Joyner's absence. I join many past and present Members of Congress in my gratitude and appreciation to Captain Joyner for her outstanding leadership and unwavering support of the missions of the U.S. Navy, and especially to her patient and supportive family, Commander James ``Bud'' Mitchell Joyner, Sara Elizabeth Joyner, and Mark Samuel Joyner, I wish ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. President, the Russian sanctions amendment passed by this body 97 to 2 last year--I take it the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Virginia were here at the time; it was one person who was not--was negotiated between Senators of both parties on multiple committees, including Foreign Relations, Banking, and Armed Services. It was specifically designed to impose tough sanctions on Russian defense and intelligence sectors, to impose tough sanctions on the Russian military industrial complex and intelligence agencies that have made it possible for Russia to invade Ukraine, annex Crimea, terrorize Syria, threaten our NATO allies, and attack America's election in 2016. Have no doubt about what this amendment is, my dear colleagues and friends. It is a giveaway to the Russian military industrial complex.

There has always been a collection of lawmakers, executives, and lobbyists who have accepted continuing, even deepening, our Nation's dependence on Russian rocket engines. That is exactly what will happen if we allow this amendment to pass, and the door will once again fly open for taxpayer dollars to be used to subsidize purchases of Russian rocket engines--purchases which line the pockets of Vladimir Putin's cronies.

My friends, if you want to vote to buy more Russian rocket engines, just say it. That is fine. That is fine with me, but to cloak it in some kind of bipartisan agreement that somehow we are going to have to continue to buy these Russian rocket engines, after we had an agreement last year 97 to 2--97 to 2--what does this do? This undoes last year's 97-to-2 agreement. We don't need this amendment to meet America's needs in space.

As a result of last year's bipartisan agreement and the NDAA, the Department of Defense is on a path to gradually eliminate dependence on Russia as quickly as possible while fostering competition among American companies. NASA needs to do the same. NASA needs to do the same. NASA needs to do the same.

Sanctions, by definition, require tradeoffs. Sanctions are not free. Countries that impose sanctions must be willing to pay a cost, too, if and when a greater principle, a great national security interest, is at stake.

Let me conclude because I note the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the ranking member here. There are costs and tradeoffs the United States has been asking our European allies to make in the last few years. We have leaned on France to cancel a sale of naval vessels to Russia. We have been warning Central and Eastern European allies against deepening their dependence on Russian energy with various energy deals and infrastructure projects. We should not be asking our allies to make these sacrifices unless we are prepared to do the same.

We will probably pass this amendment. If there is ever a doubt in any of our constituents' minds about the influence of special interests, it will be with passage of this amendment--which, by the way, with all due respect to my friends and colleagues, was the one thing they didn't want. The one thing they didn't want was an on-the-record vote on this amendment, which is why I am confident it will lose, but I want every Member of the U.S. Senate to look in the eyes of the mother whose son was just killed by a Russian sniper, as I did, down in Mariupol not too long ago.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I know how it is going to come out, but Members of the U.S. Senate will at least be on record. I say this is not the most courageous chapter in the history of this institution. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I thank the Senator from Tennessee and my friend from Maryland.

I yield the floor.