Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to offer my congratulations to Gen. Herbert ``Hawk'' Carlisle on the occasion of his retirement from the U.S. Air Force this month.

Over four decades of distinguished service, from the Air Force Academy to the Pentagon to leadership in two four-star commands, General Carlisle has been instrumental in advancing the capabilities of our Air Force and improving the lives of its most precious asset--its airmen.

As commander of Pacific Air Forces, General Carlisle was responsible for Air Force activities spanning more than half the globe, leading 45,000 airmen across the Pacific from Hawaii and Alaska to Japan and Korea. He provided critical strategic leadership as the United States worked to strengthen its commitment to peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific Region at time of increasing challenge.

Under General Carlisle's leadership, the airmen of Air Combat Command pressed the fight against America's adversaries, delivering devastating effects against violent extremism in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. General Carlisle's determination and hard work were essential to bringing the Air Force's F-35A Joint Strike Fighter to initial operational capability--no small achievement for a long-delayed and troubled program, yet one that is so critical for sustaining America's military dominance into the future.

I had the pleasure of getting to know General Carlisle when he served as director of the Air Force's Legislative Liaison Office. It was then that I came to appreciate his honesty and candor. Those of us tasked with the oversight of the Department of Defense and our Armed Forces rely upon the candor of our senior military leaders. In my interactions with General Carlisle in various positions through the years, whether in private meetings or in public testimony, I could always count on General Carlisle to provide his best military advice on critical defense matters affecting the Air Force and our Nation. I hope his successors will follow in that same spirit of transparency and collaboration. I also hope that my colleagues and I will continue to benefit from General Carlisle's wise counsel.

Once again, I want to express my sincere thanks to General Carlisle for his distinguished service to our country and congratulate him on a well-earned retirement. I wish General Carlisle and his family all the best as he embarks on the next chapter of his life.

Mr. President, I take the floor to urge an ``aye'' vote on invoking cloture on the issue of Montenegro's admittance into NATO. I would point out that 25 of the 28 nations in NATO have already voted in favor of Montenegro's accession into NATO. Only the United States, Spain, and the Netherlands have yet to weigh in.

I would like to point out that Montenegro's admittance into NATO is a critical test of the alliances's open-door policy. I don't ask my colleagues to take my word for it. I would just like to point out that our Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Curtis Scaparrotti, last week declared that Montenegro's accession into NATO is ``absolutely critical,'' that they have had this desire. They have met the map, and they understand NATO'S outreach and ability to bring

in those who want to determine their own means of government and become part of NATO.

If we were to lose this, it would be a setback to many of the other nations and peoples, particularly in Eastern Europe, who were looking forward to and have their eyes on the West and becoming part of NATO.

I would point out to my colleagues that the Russians attach some importance to Montenegro because they tried a coup to overthrow the government. The Russians tried a coup to overthrow the government of this small, beautiful, and strategically important nation.

I would just point out that our Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, wrote a letter urging Montenegro's membership to be ratified, saying that it was ``strongly in the interests of the United States.'' In his letter he strongly emphasized that Montenegro's accession to NATO would support greater integration, democratic reform, trade, and security and stability in the entire Balkans region.

I won't take too much time in the Senate except to say that I think this is more than an accession or non-accession of a small 750,000- person nation. It is a test in this contest that we are now engaged in with Vladimir Putin, who has committed to extending the reach and influence of the Russian Government and Russian influence to the point where he attempted a coup to overthrow the freely elected government of Montenegro. That coup failed, but I can assure my colleagues that if we turn down Montenegro, it will not remain the democracy that it is today.

General Breedlove, who is our former commander in Europe said:

Montenegro is a very strategic place. Can you imagine A2/AD

Bubbles in Montenegro?

I urge my colleagues for a resounding ``aye'' vote in bringing cloture to an end and bringing Montenegro into the community of NATO, which is needed more now than at any time since the end of the Cold War. I, also, by the way, recommend to my colleagues a visit to, really, one of the more beautiful countries on Earth.

I yield for the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina, particularly on the issue of Russian sanctions.

Yesterday, we saw the people of Russia, particularly the younger people, demonstrating peacefully in the streets of the cities and towns throughout Russia in order to protest the corruption and dictatorship of Vladimir Putin. At the time, the leader of the opposition was jailed. He was in the process of putting together a study that showed that Medvedev, who was Putin's puppet, was one of the wealthiest people on Earth.

I was heartened by the willingness and the courage of the people of Russia to stand up and protest a corrupt, dictatorial, and brutal government that, unfortunately, they are saddled with.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation right now?

Mr. President, I understand that we will be voting in about 10 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. President, I have had the great honor and privilege of knowing the nominee to be our Director of National Intelligence for many years. In fact, I came to the House of Representatives in the election of 1984, and I had the honor of knowing Dan Coats beginning at that time.

As is well known, Dan Coats left the Senate and became our Ambassador to Germany, where he did an outstanding job. He came back to the U.S. Senate and served in this body with distinction and honor. Now he goes on to serve as the Director of National Intelligence.

I could argue that a dedicated, experienced, knowledgeable, and courageous Director of National Intelligence

is now needed more than at any time that I can remember in the last many years.

With divisions within the intelligence community, there are challenges to the credibility of the intelligence community along the lines that I have never seen. There are questions about the activities of the intelligence community. For example, the President of the United States alleges that Trump Tower was ``wiretapped,'' in his words, by the previous administration, and we see the former Director of National Intelligence both before the Congress and on national television stating that those allegations are not true.

There are probably more questions and more controversy surrounding our intelligence services than at any time since anyone can remember, since Watergate. So this is a perfect time, in my view, for Dan Coats to assume the highest responsibilities of our Director of National Intelligence. He has the respect and indeed affection of Members on both sides of the aisle because of his successful efforts at working in a bipartisan fashion. He served on the Intelligence Committee. He served on that committee in a very dedicated and knowledgeable fashion.

I hope my colleagues will unanimously vote in favor of our former colleague. Both sides of the aisle know him, and we know him well. I wish I had some of his qualities of congeniality and pleasantry. He has always been respectful of other views. Even in the fiercest debates that we might have, he has always been respectful of those who disagree. So he comes to the job with the much needed credibility that will make him immediately effective.

Let's be frank. The intelligence communities are probably under greater attack in a whole variety of ways, both on whether the American people trust them to do the job that they are doing or whether they have become a partisan organization. I think that with the respect and appreciation and affection that those of us who had the privilege of knowing him--on both sides of the aisle--and knowing what an honorable and decent person he is, he will not only serve as an effective Director of National Intelligence, but he will serve to restore credibility.

God knows we need credibility at this time, as we see the Russians trying to affect the outcome of our election, as we see today the Russians trying to affect the French election and possibly the German election, as we see unprecedented cyber attacks--more than at any time in the past. With the challenge of cyber alone, where our adversaries or our potential adversaries are equal to or even, in some cases, more capable of exercising their abilities and capabilities in the cyber realm, then we are in a very difficult and challenging struggle.

That is why I think that many times in history, not only does the man make the job but the job makes the man. I am confident, in the case of Senator Dan Coats, that will be the case.

I thank the Democratic leader for allowing this vote to take place so Dan Coats can get to work immediately.

I urge my colleagues to offer their support with their vote for this nomination of a great and good and gentle man who has again volunteered to serve his Nation, for which all of us should be appreciative, and I am sure we are.

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 1 minute.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to render an ``aye'' vote for the nomination of Herbert McMaster to remain in active duty at the three-star level. He is experienced. He is talented. He knows what it is like to be in combat with the enemy, and I believe he is badly needed in this important position.

I urge my colleagues to render an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for as long as I want.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be in the company of the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee and one who is most knowledgeable on issues of national security and foreign policy. I believe that Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire will be joining us.

This is an issue that I am sorry has to be brought up in this fashion. It concerns a little country that wants to be a part of the European Union, that wants to be a part of the values, customs, and ideals of the West and has been under significant pressure and even assault from Russia.

In fact, although it wasn't as recognized as it should have been at the time, Russia has sought to keep Montenegro from becoming a NATO member, launching an anti-NATO campaign that has been both brazen and unscrupulous. Russia has exerted outsized influence to stop Montenegro's membership, calling further NATO enlargement a ``provocation.'' Russia went so far as to plot a coup d'etat in which they planned to assassinate the Montenegrin Prime Minister and seize control of government buildings in the capital. I repeat: The Russians tried a coup in Montenegro. They wanted to kill the Prime Minister and overthrow the government in order to keep Montenegro from becoming a part of NATO.

If we send this clear message to Russia that it won't have veto power over NATO enlargement decisions--and, frankly, I am puzzled that there is any objection to this, considering the fact that Montenegro has spent the last 7 years preparing for NATO eligibility. This has strengthened the country's defense and intelligence forces and transformed the country into a strong Western ally.

It is a small country and a beautiful country, but it is an important Balkan nation. Its membership in NATO would improve the stability in the region, where, I know my colleagues would agree, there is great instability.

Stopping Montenegro's NATO candidacy would represent a significant shift in U.S. policy and signify an acquiescence to Moscow's growing influence in the Balkans, producing a ripple effect throughout the region that would have profound ramifications on our shared security interests.

The United States has benefited tremendously from peace and stability in Europe, and the foundation of that

peace and stability is NATO. That is why we should stand with Montenegro or risk undermining our vision of a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace.

I see my two colleagues here, Senator Cardin and Senator Shaheen. So I will conclude by saying this. This is a small country. This is a small country that has been the scene of conflict for centuries. This is a small country with a freely elected democratic government. This is a small country whose population wants to be part of NATO. They want to be part of the West. If we keep turning this down after 25 of the 28 governments in NATO have voted in favor of Montenegro's accession to NATO, my friends, we would be sending a terrible, terrible message.

So in a few minutes, I will ask unanimous consent for us, as the U.S. Senate, to move forward with treaty consent.

First, I would like to yield to my colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin.

Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Maryland. This issue probably doesn't matter a lot to many of our voters. It probably is not something that is uppermost in their minds. But because of your hard work here in the Senate and your indepth knowledge of the issues and challenges that face this country, in what is arguably the most uncertain and turbulent time in the last 70 years, you have taken the time and the effort to learn about this small country, this small beautiful country whose only wish, whose only desire is to be a part of our community of NATO so that they can come under the umbrella of protection and move forward with a thriving democracy in a very volatile part of Europe.

I want to especially thank Senator Shaheen and Senator Cardin for their advocacy, affection, and appreciation

of the citizens of the small country who are only seeking what we sometimes take so much for granted. So I especially want to thank them.

I also want to thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Corker, who also was very involved in getting this through.

So, Mr. President, if there is objection--and I note that the Senator from Kentucky is on the floor, and I will say before I read this, if there is objection, you are achieving the objectives of Vladimir Putin. You are achieving the objectives of trying to dismember this small country that has already been the subject of an attempted coup.

I have no idea why anyone would object to this, except that I will say, if they object, they are now carrying out the desires and ambitions of Vladimir Putin, and I do not say that lightly.

unanimous consent request--executive calendar

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 1, Montenegro, Treaty Document No. 114-12; that the treaty be considered as having advanced through the various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolution of ratification; that any committee declarations be agreed to as applicable; that there be no amendments in order to the treaty or the resolution of ratification; that there be 2 hours for debate, equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on the resolution; that any statements be printed in the Record; that if the resolution of ratification is agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that if the resolution is not agreed to, the treaty be returned to the calendar, and that there be no motions or points of order in order other than a motion to reconsider; and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I note the Senator from Kentucky is leaving the floor without justification or any rationale for the action he has just taken. It is really remarkable that a Senator is blocking a treaty that is supported by an overwhelming number--perhaps 98, at least, of his colleagues. To come to the floor and object and walk away--walk away--the only conclusion that can be drawn when he walks away is that he has no argument to be made. He has no justification for his objection to having a small nation that is under assault from the Russians be part of NATO.

So I repeat again: The Senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, and I know I speak for 90-some U.S. Senators with a message to the brave people of Montenegro who are upholding democracy, who have fought against a coup that would have overthrown their government, who cherish freedom, who cherish the alliance that it has held so long for so many years.

We will not stop until we ratify your entrance into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I pledge to the people of Montenegro that Senator Shaheen, Senator Cardin, and I, and many other Senators, will not stop until this resolution is passed and we can strengthen not only Montenegro the nation and NATO, but the region.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the dedicated public service of Paul Francis, who will soon retire as managing director for acquisition and sourcing management with the Government Accountability Office, GAO, a position he has held since 2009. For more than 42 years, Paul has helped the U.S. Congress analyze the $2 trillion in the ships, planes, tactical vehicles, satellites, and scores of other systems and related services that the Department of Defense, DOD, has procured to make our Nation safe. In so doing, Paul has obtained the respect of the Members of this body and the deep affection of his colleagues, who for decades have hewed to his fine example of public service.

An important congressional oversight tool that Paul helped develop at GAO almost 15 years ago is its annual ``Quick Look'' assessment of the Pentagon's procurement of its most expensive, most complicated weapon systems. In these reports and in the hundreds of individual reports that GAO has released on major defense acquisition programs, Paul's teams first identified, and railed--occasionally like a lone voice in the wilderness--against the proliferation of ``concurrent development'' throughout the Pentagon's portfolio of major procurement programs. As Paul and his team observed, this acquisition strategy, which features an excessive overlap between development and production, has exposed the DOD's largest weapons procurement efforts to an undue, high risk of discoveries late in production, often requiring costly redesign, production cut-ins and retrofits--driving up the costs of these programs exponentially, especially those executed carelessly under cost-plus contracts. These observations have been vital to Congress's attempts to reform, among other programs, the joint strike fighter and the aerial refueling tanker programs and provided Congress with a valuable framework for analyzing and overseeing how the DOD spends hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars each year.

Since first becoming a member of the Senior Executive Service in 2002, Paul has testified before Congress more than 20 times--sounding the alarm on everything from unmanned aerial vehicles, the Army's Future Combat System, shipbuilding and missile defense programs, and broader issues of acquisition best practices and reform. For more than a decade, I have relied greatly on his clear analysis and recommendations related to the Ford-class aircraft carrier and littoral combat ship programs.

In addition, Paul has been an excellent witness, who counterbalances the Pentagon's complicated, technical, and bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, which I sometimes think the DOD purposefully uses to resist being understood by a layperson, with cogent, plainspoken, evenhanded, but nuanced assessments. Time and again, Paul has thoughtfully illustrated the practices that should be followed to ensure success, as well as how poorly aligned bureaucratic incentives lead to failure despite well- intentioned individuals. Also noting that all individuals participating in the defense acquisition process ``see their needs as rational and aligned with the national interest, collectively'' and that ``these needs create incentives for pushing programs and encouraging undue optimism, parochialism, and other compromises of good judgment,'' Paul has reminded us that the problems we see in the defense acquisition process are not the fault of any one actor--they are the collective responsibility of all of us.

Paul epitomizes what Congress and the American public value about the Government Accountability Office--the honest broker. In believing that oversight of programs funded by taxpayer dollars represents a sacred trust and in embracing this responsibility aggressively with joy, Paul has been a tireless, effective advocate for both the American taxpayer and the men and women in service to the government's many and varied missions. He has inspired his teams with this notion of resource stewardship, that American taxpayers should get what they have paid for and American warfighters should get the capabilities they need to defend this great Nation.

Paul has received numerous GAO awards during his career, including the Comptroller General's Award and the John Henry Luke Mentoring Award. Leading by example at GAO, he models his own motto, which is ``Be right. Communicate well. Don't leave people in body bags.''

Throughout his remarkable career with GAO, Paul has been supported by a wonderful family, including his wife, Vicky, and two daughters, Sheri and Katie--all of whom are engaged in public service in various ways. We wish Paul a fond farewell and thank him for his distinguished service to Congress and the American public. Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Congressman Mick Mulvaney to serve as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Under most circumstances, I always give the benefit of the doubt to the incoming President for obvious reasons; that he is the choice of the American people. So it is with great reluctance that I come to the floor of the Senate to rise in opposition to the nomination of Congressman Mick Mulvaney.

President Trump has committed to ``end the Defense sequester and rebuild our military.'' Earlier this month, the President promised troops at CENTCOM headquarters that his administration ``will make an historic financial investment in the armed forces of the United States.'' I fully support the President's commitment. I fear that Congressman Mulvaney, as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, does not.

I believe we must rebuild our military while at the same time putting our Nation on a sustainable, long-term fiscal path. We can and must do both. Unfortunately, Congressman Mulvaney has spent his last 6 years in the House of Representatives pitting the national debt against our military. He offered amendments in support of cutting our national defense funding year after year after year.

As my colleagues and I sought repeatedly to find legislative solutions to reverse dangerous defense cuts and eliminate arbitrary defense spending caps, it was Congressman Mulvaney and his allies who repeatedly sought to torpedo these efforts.

In 2013, Congressman Mulvaney succeeded in passing an amendment to cut $3.5 billion from the Defense appropriations bill. His website featured an article touting the achievement, but when I asked him about that vote during his confirmation hearing, Congressman Mulvaney said he didn't remember that amendment. I think anybody who treats our national defense with the seriousness it deserves would remember a vote like that.

President Trump has said that defense cuts over the last several years have depleted our military. Our military leaders have testified that these cuts have placed the ``lives of'' our military ``servicemembers at greater risk.'' That is an exact quote from our military leaders, but Congressman Mulvaney has said that in the greater scheme of things, sequestration cuts were not that big. He also said: ``The only thing worse than those military cuts would be no cuts at all.''

This is the kind of statement that can only be made by a person detached from the reality of what these cuts have meant to military servicemembers. Tell that to the thousands of soldiers who were forced out of the Army because of these cuts. Tell that to the Marine pilots who fly fewer hours per month than their Russian and Chinese counterparts because of these cuts. Tell that to the Air Force maintainers, stealing parts from retired aircraft and museum pieces to keep their planes in the air because of sequestration. Tell that to the crew of the submarine USS Boise who can't deploy because their boat is no longer qualified to dive and can't receive required upkeep because of chronic maintenance backlogs. Tell that to the thousands of Navy sailors who have picked up the slack for an overworked Navy by going on extended deployments and spending more and more time away from their families, all because of the defense cuts.

Congressman Mulvaney's beliefs, as revealed by his poor record on defense spending, are fundamentally at odds with President Trump's commitment to rebuild our military. This record can't be ignored in light of the significant authority exercised by the Director of the OMB over the Federal budget.

Almost every one of my colleagues in this body--all but one--voted for Jim Mattis to be Secretary of Defense because they knew he was the right leader to help the Department of Defense confront growing threats to our national security. I share that same confidence, but I also know he can't do it alone. Voting in favor of Congressman Mulvaney's nomination would be asking Secretary Mattis to spend less time fighting our enemies overseas and more time fighting inside the beltway budget battles with an OMB Director with a deep ideological commitment to cutting the resources available to his Department.

Congressman Mulvaney's record is equally troubling when it comes to foreign policy. Apparently, Congressman Mulvaney shared President Obama's naive assumptions about Russia's threat to Eastern security when he voted to require the withdrawal of two Army brigade combat teams from Europe in 2012. He compounded the error in 2013 when he voted to withdraw the 2nd Cavalry Regiment from Europe. Congressman Mulvaney and others

supported these withdrawals in the name of saving money, but the shortsighted decision to withdraw troops and capabilities from Europe ended up costing the taxpayers billions more, not less.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, America's military presence in Europe was inadequate to the scale and scope of Russia's threat to our interests and our allies. Addressing this problem has required billions of dollars in new investments to enhance our deterrent posture in Europe; in other words, American taxpayers, quite literally, paid the price for the strategic mistake of withdrawing from Europe, supported by Congressman Mulvaney.

In 2011, Congressman Mulvaney voted for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan. I repeat that. This is not a typographical error. In 2011, Congressman Mulvaney voted for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Congressman Mulvaney voting to abandon America's mission to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for terrorists to attack our homeland as they did on September 11, is disturbing enough, but Congressman Mulvaney's testimony during his confirmation hearing that he did so at the urging of a single constituent, with no apparent regard for the national security consequences, leaves me with serious doubts about his judgment on matters of national security.

Beyond matters of defense and national security policy, I am also concerned about Congressman Mulvaney's support for reckless budget strategies that led to a government shutdown. He made frequent attempts to diminish the impact of the shutdown by referring to it as a ``government slowdown,'' or the more Orwellian term, ``temporary lapse in appropriations.'' There are few people whose views and record are more representative of the dysfunction that has gripped Washington for the last several years than that attitude.

Over my 30 years in the Senate, I have shown great deference to Presidents of both parties in selecting members of their Cabinet, but I cannot on this nominee. My decision to oppose this nomination is not about one person. It is not about one Cabinet position. This is not personal. This is not political. This is about principle. This is about my conviction as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee that providing for the common defense is our highest constitutional duty and that rebuilding our military must be the No. 1 priority of the Congress and the White House.

I will vote to oppose Congressman Mulvaney's nomination because it would be irresponsible to place the future of the defense budget in the hands of a person with such a record and judgment on national security.

This is the beginning, not the end, of the fight to rebuild our military. I will continue to stand on principle as this body considers a budget resolution for the coming fiscal year and Defense authorization bill and a Defense appropriations bill, and I will continue to stand on principle in fighting to bring a full repeal of the Budget Control Act's discretionary spending caps to the floor of the Senate.

For 6 years now, Washington dysfunction has imposed very real consequences on the thousands of Americans serving in uniform and sacrificing on our behalf all around the Nation and the world.

From Afghanistan to Iraq and Syria, to the heart of Europe, to the seas of Asia, our troops are doing everything we ask of them. It is time for those of us in this body to do all we can for them. So long as I serve as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, it is my pledge to do just that.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the rules governing the procedure of the Committee on Armed Services have not changed for the 115th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Reed, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I am proud to support Dr. David Shulkin's nomination for Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, faces massive challenges in delivering care to our veterans, but I believe that Dr. Shulkin is well equipped for the task at hand.

Dr. Shulkin has committed to fully implementing the Veterans Choice Program as Secretary and will work to expand this program to provide a network that meets the needs of veterans, their families, and providers in the community--every veteran deserves access to care, whether that be at the VA or in the community.

Through the Veterans Choice Program, we have seen more than 7 million appointments made for veterans in their communities, a network expanded by 350,000 providers and over 1.5 million veterans that have benefitted from using the Choice Card. I will seek to build and expand upon this progress and look to Dr. Shulkin's support for legislation that would bring care in the community under an integrated and coordinated system that utilizes a Veterans Choice Card. This will ensure access to timely, flexible, and quality care that our veterans have earned and deserve.

I believe that Dr. Shulkin is the person that can repair the culture of the VA to focus on the veteran and restore honesty and accountability to the Department. I thank him for accepting this challenge to serve our Nation and look forward to working with him in the days ahead.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise today in fond memory of Robert Justin Stevens, a former staffer of mine who recently passed away-- entirely too young--after a long, arduous fight with cancer.

Justin was exemplary in his desire to serve and his love for public policy and politics. He was a dedicated public servant who worked tirelessly to improve the lives of Americans. Over the last few years, Justin managed Federal policy and advocacy for homeland security, public safety, and military-related issues as legislative director with the National Governors Association.

Before that, Justin worked with me, and later with Senator Scott Brown, as a professional staff member at the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security. There, he helped us to identify and address waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending and financial improvement, audit readiness, and business transformation at our Federal agencies. During my 2008 Presidential campaign, Justin served as a senior advance team lead. It was in that context that I was first introduced to Justin's boundless love of life and energy.

Justin also served as the director for candidate operations and advance for the Scott Brown for Senate 2012 campaign; a financial systems analyst with the EMCOR Group; and a Navy/NASA university faculty fellowship program manager with the American Society for Engineering Education, ASEE.

Justin never took his young life for granted. An avid runner and adventurous soul, Justin sought to improve himself by taking courses in furtherance of a master's in national security and strategic studies at the U.S. Naval War College, after having received a B.S. in business administration from the University of Florida and graduated East Lake High School. Also, unbowed by his continuing struggle with cancer and always filled with hope, Justin married the love of his life, Elizabeth.

Justin will be forever remembered for the joy he brought to the lives of his family, friends, and colleagues with his humor, energy, and selflessness. Throughout his young life, Justin always made sure that those closest to him knew how important they were to him.

Cindy and I extend our warmest condolences to Justin's wife, Elizabeth; his mother Jean Nowakowski; his stepmother Karen Stevens, with whom Justin was exceptionally close; his siblings Bryan and Damon; his niece Magdalena and nephew Jackson. Thank you.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his courtesy. I think this will take about 7 or 8 minutes, I would say to my colleague from Illinois.

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

Mr. President, last week I was heartbroken to learn that a dear friend and great fighter for freedom, Vladimir Kara-Murza, had been hospitalized in Moscow. Those of us who know the work of this brave Russian patriot could not afford to hope or assume that he was suffering some ordinary illness. Just 2 years ago, under mysterious circumstances, Vladimir grew very ill and fell into a coma.

Many suspected he was poisoned, to intimidate him or worse. That is why last week's news signaled another shadowy strike against a brilliant voice who has defied the tyranny of Putin's Russia.

Many Americans are not familiar with the life of Vladimir Kara-Murza, but it is one that reflects the best qualities of leadership, courage, selflessness, idealism and patriotism, and it is a life dedicated to the principles we all hold dear: truth and justice, freedom and fairness, human rights and human dignity.

All his life, Vladimir has been a brave, outspoken, and relentless champion for the Russian people. He is a deputy leader of the People's Freedom Party, Russia's leading pro-democracy party. He is a leading coordinator of Open Russia, a foundation that promotes civil society and democracy in Russia. In 2011, he helped mobilize the largest anti- Kremlin demonstration since the early 1990s, leading tens of thousands of Russians to march in protest of widespread fraud and corruption in the parliamentary elections.

In the United States, Vladimir was one of the most passionate and effective advocates for passage of the Magnitsky Act, legislation that gives the Federal Government powers to punish human rights violators in Russia. Most recently he has eloquently and persuasively campaigned to expand the Act to impose sanctions on those Russians journalists who were so cowed and corrupted by the Kremlin that they become indispensable to propagating the lies and atmosphere of hate, fear, and violence the Putin regime relies on to maintain power.

Vladimir's family has a long history of heroism for years, dating back to the early 1900s. Vladimir once described the experience of visiting the KGB archives in Moscow where he reviewed the thin file on his great grandfather who was executed. It contained the scant evidence required for a death sentence in Stalin's Russia. He recalled the weight that fell upon him when he read the modest document to which the executioners affixed the date and their signatures to signify that the judgment had been carried out.

Vladimir also learned what it takes to be a revolutionary from our mutual friend Boris Nemtsov. Vladimir and Boris struggled together for years in the cause of freedom and democracy. Vladimir once called Boris the best President Russia never had.

Boris was one of the first to warn of the incoming Putin dictatorship, even when many of his fellow liberals could not see it. He told the truth about Putin's reign of terror, rampant corruption, and his illegal invasion of Ukraine. For the crime of telling the truth in Putin's Russia, Boris Nemtsov was murdered in the shadow of the Kremlin in 2015.

He died a martyr. He died a martyr for the rights of people who were taught to hate him but who will one day mourn his death, revere his memory, and despise his murderers. After Boris's assassination, many urged Vladimir not to return to Russia. He had every reason not to. He knew his own family's history with tyranny. He knew what happened to Boris Nemtsov, and he knew all too well about the culture of impunity that Putin has created in Russia, where individuals are routinely persecuted and attacked for their beliefs, including by the Russian Government, and no one is ever held responsible.

He knew about Sergei Yushenkov, who was investigating the Kremlin's potential role in the 1999 apartment bombings in Russia when he was shot and killed at the entrance of his apartment. He knew about American journalist Paul Klebnikov, who was investigating Russian Government connections to organized crime when he was shot to death in Moscow in 2004.

He knew about Anna Politkovskaya, a journalist, human rights activist, and fierce critic of Putin's brutal war in Chechnya, who was murdered in the stairwell of her apartment building on Putin's birthday in 2006.

He knew about former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, who exposed the Putin regime's massive corruption tied to organized crime and involving assassination and murder. He was poisoned to death in 2006 with a radioactive isotype in a brazen act of nuclear terrorism.

He knew about Sergei Magnitsky, that most unlikely of heroes in the cause of freedom, the humble tax attorney who blew the whistle on tax fraud and large-scale theft by Russian Government officials, only to be charged with their crimes and die in a squalid cell inside the prison that once held the political opponents of the Czars and the Soviets.

In short, Vladimir knew that Putin is a killer--and he is a killer. He might very well be the next target. Vladimir knew that there was no moral equivalence between the United States and Putin's Russia. I repeat: There is no moral equivalence between that butcher and thug and KGB colonel and the United States of America, the country that Ronald Reagan used to call a shining city on a hill. To allege some kind of moral equivalence between the two is either terribly misinformed or incredibly biased. Neither can be accurate in any way.

Knowing all this, knowing that his life was at risk, Vladimir returned to Russia. He continued to speak truth to power. He kept faith with his ideals and was in confrontation with a cruel and dangerous autocracy. He kept faith honorably and bravely with the example of his friend and comrade Boris Nemtsov.

Now it appears that Vladimir has once again paid the price for his gallantry and integrity, for placing the interests of the Russian people before his own self-interest. He is very ill, but I am encouraged to learn his condition is now stable.

So today, speaking for so many Americans, I offer my most heartfelt prayers for the recovery of Vladimir Kara-Murza and for the success of the cause to which he has dedicated his life: truth and justice for the Russian people. And I do so with the confidence Vladimir himself once expressed: ``I am sure that in the end, we will win, because even when dictators prevail for some time, sooner or later, freedom wins.''

I thank my colleague from Illinois for his indulgence.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week, we celebrated the 100th birthday of an American for whom my family

and I have always had the greatest personal respect and admiration: ADM Lloyd R. ``Joe'' Vasey.

Joe Vasey was my father's dear friend and comrade for so many years. As he marks a century of life well lived, I send him the warmest wishes and convey to him thanks of a grateful nation for embodying the very finest qualities of patriotism and for his constant service to a cause greater than himself.

From the Naval Academy to dangerous duty in the Second World War to five commands at sea to service in the highest councils of military command, Joe Vasey's was a most distinguished and honorable Navy career. But he did not believe that his retirement from active duty relieved him of the responsibilities of patriotism. He continued to serve the national interest by founding the Pacific Forum to promote security and stability in the critically important Asia-Pacific region.

The only elaboration of this illustrious life I can offer are reminiscences of a friendship, some of which I was privileged to personally observe, which for me served as emblematic of a tradition; that of service as an officer in the U.S. Navy and the bonds of respect and love that unite good officers in shared sacrifice and devotion to their service and their country. It is the tradition upon which, in the most difficult moments of my life, I relied for the strength to persevere for my country's honor and for my self-respect.

Very late in his life, my father was interviewed for an oral history of our officers in the post-World War II Navy. ``There's a term which has slipped somewhat into disuse,'' he remarked in the interview, ``which I always used to the moment I retired, and that is the term: an officer and a gentleman.'' Had my father been asked to identify a contemporary who personified the virtues he considered essential to the life of an officer and a gentleman, I have no doubt he would have thought first of his friend Joe Vasey.

My father's respect and affection for Joe Vasey was unlimited. Their friendship was forged in the crucible of war and strengthened to last a lifetime by their shared experiences aboard the USS Gunnel as it prowled the Pacific from Midway to Nagasaki in search of the enemy. And find them they did. On one occasion, the ship sank a Japanese freighter and destroyer, but was then forced to submerge for 36 hours while avoiding Japanese depth charges. With the temperature on the submarine reaching 120 degrees and oxygen running low, my father decided to surface and try to fight the remaining Japanese ships. But he offered his torpedo officer, Joe Vasey, and the rest of his officers the option to abandon ship. To a man, they agreed with my father and rejected that course. When the Gunnel surfaced, its weary crew found the Japanese destroyers had given up and were steaming away. My father, Joe Vasey, and their comrades lived to fight another day.

My father and Joe Vasey were proud veterans of an epic war. They never felt the need to exaggerate their experiences, extraordinary as they were. But they did talk about the lessons of leadership they learned and how they could be applied to new circumstances. And they had many occasions to do so. They were together when my father became commander-in-chief of Pacific Command during the Vietnam war and Admiral Vasey served as his most trusted adviser as head of strategic plans and policies. They were together when they argued to Washington for a strategy to win the war rather than just continue the bleeding. And they were together when my father gave orders for B-52s to bomb the city in which his son was held a prisoner of war. They were the best of friends and exemplified that noblest of traditions: brothers in arms.

I count myself immeasurably fortunate to have benefited from their example early in life so that I could derive the strength I needed to survive later misfortune from their stories, their courage, and their honor.

So to Joe Vasey, a great patriot, a good man, an officer and a gentleman, and a brave defender of this Nation, I wish a very happy birthday, fair winds, and following seas.