Floor Statements

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 graduating 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, Karen; his stepmother, Jean Nowakowski, with whom Justin was exceptionally close; his siblings, Bryan and Damon; his niece, Magdalena and nephew Jackson.

Mr. President, the new Director of the CIA must focus on uncovering facts about the many complex national security threats confronting our Nation. Now is the time to turn the page on our discussions of old programs and activities, which we have thoroughly reviewed and addressed.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 included a provision to apply the Army Field Manual's interrogation requirements to all U.S. agencies, including the CIA. Congressman Mike Pompeo voted for that law. During both our personal conversations and his confirmation hearing, Congressman Pompeo has repeatedly committed to me that he will comply with the law as Director of CIA. He also committed to me that if, after talking to professional officers of the CIA, he has any recommendations for changing the law or updating current guidelines, he will present those recommendations to the Congress.

I have no reason to doubt Congressman Pompeo's word, and I fully support his confirmation. Going forward, I will continue to closely monitor this issue and use my oversight powers to ensure the law is obeyed.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor an American hero, Navy Seal Charles Keating IV, who died in service to his country.

On January 13, 2017, the Navy awarded its highest honor, the Navy Cross, to CPO Charles Keating IV for heroism demonstrated in combat against the Islamic State in northern Iraq. Our Nation lost a great patriot and American hero in Charles, who was only 31 when he succumbed to injuries sustained during an attack on his team. Charles, a Navy SEAL special warfare operator chief petty officer, was part of a quick reaction force that was called upon to aid U.S. military forces and Kurdish Peshmerga allies when they came under heavy fire by a large force of Islamic State fighters north of Mosul. Tragically, we lost Charles on May 3, 2016.

Charles enlisted in the Navy in 2007, leaving Indiana University where he was a long-distance runner. He went on to graduate from the basic underwater demolition/SEAL training in 2008, joining an elite group. He served one tour in Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and two tours in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Previously awarded the Silver Star for his actions in the line of duty, Chief Keating was awarded the Navy Cross posthumously for his demonstration of extraordinary heroism and valor when he was the decisive repellant of an overwhelming enemy force, assuring the lives of his team and coalition counterparts. According to his award citation:

Keating's courageous leadership, tactical acumen, and

physical courage were the key factors in defeating an assault

on friendly lines by more than 100 enemy fighters. He

continually exposed himself to enemy automatic weapon,

mortar, and rocket propelled grenade fire as he diligently

maneuvered between fighting positions to stop enemy advances.

The enemy then attempted to flank his position with a

vehicle-borne improvised explosive device. At great personal

risk, Chief Keating led a team into the open to intercept and

neutralize the rapidly closing VBIED threat with precise

sniper and rocket fire. His personal bravery throughout the

engagement inspired his comrades to vigorously defend their

position and repel the enemy's assault.

Nowadays, the words ``hero'' and ``heroism'' are used so often that they tend to lose some of their meaning. For this reason, it is so very important that we identify heroism and honor heroes when they truly present themselves. There can be no greater hero among us than those like Chief Keating, who gave their lives for their fellow man in support of ideals greater than their own self-interest. With this in mind, I ask my fellow Members of Congress to join me as we honor the life of Navy SEAL Special Warfare Operator Chief Petty Officer Charles Keating IV and his legacy, who will stand forever in our memory as an illustrious example of each and every man and woman in our Armed Forces and those in harm's way supporting them, who give the ultimate selfless sacrifice in service to our great country.

Mr. President, there is not a lot of benefit in being around here for a long period of time, but I remember very well in January of 2009, when the new President of the United States and, in a spirit of enthusiasm and bipartisanship, the Senate, on the first day of the inauguration, approved of seven Cabinet members, seven--not two, as we are presently contemplating, but seven. All of those individuals, as I recall, had some degree of concern about them, had some degree of controversy--some more, some less. But the fact is, we moved forward and almost unanimously voted in favor of these Cabinet members for the simple reason that the American people had spoken, and we had a new President of a different party, and we ought to give that President the team that he needed in order to get his job done.

Now, the one difference between what I have seen here in 2017, since 2009, is that the world is on fire. Look at the world today, and look at a map of it in 2009. There weren't 6 million refugees out of Syria. There weren't 400,000 people murdered by Bashar al-Assad with the assistance of Vladimir Putin and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. We didn't have Russians using precision-guided weapons, striking hospitals in Aleppo, slaughtering innocent men, women, and children. We didn't have the Chinese acting in the most belligerent fashion in the South China Sea, asserting their sovereignty over an

international waterway through which about 60 percent of the world's economy moves, as they are now.

We didn't have Vladimir Putin invading Crimea in a violation of the Budapest agreement, in which Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons arsenal in exchange for a guarantee of the territorial integrity of Ukraine that included Crimea. We didn't have Vladimir Putin invading the land of Ukraine and partitioning it and slaughtering some 10,000 brave Ukrainians who stood up against that invasion while, by the way, we wouldn't even give them lethal weapons to defend themselves.

We have a world on fire. And we have a nominee to be the Director of the CIA. I happen to know Congressman Pompeo very well. I happen to admire his work. I happened to notice in the hearing that there was really relatively no controversy associated with his candidacy, with his nomination to be the Director of the CIA.

So my question to my dear friends on the other side of the aisle is: Why the hell won't we just go ahead and give the President his national security team when we need it more than at any time in recent history?

The American people have spoken about who they want to be Commander in Chief. Now let's give the Commander in Chief his Secretary of Defense, his Secretary of Homeland Security, and let's give him a leader of our intelligence community, the CIA. And, by God, when you look at the controversy surrounding our intelligence agencies--which is gigantic--we need a new Director of the CIA more than ever.

The American people made a decision, but they also voiced--at least in my campaign, and I can only speak, frankly, for my own--a great dissatisfaction about the fact that we don't work together, the fact that we don't sit down and talk about these things and get some kind of working arrangement. Well, how do you do that when we won't even allow a noncontroversial nominee for the Director of the CIA to be confirmed? I don't get it.

What is the point here? Is the point that we are just going to show the Republicans by slow-walking their nominees? Is that what the point of this is? If it is, then in my view, you are contradicting the will of the American people and the verdict of the American people.

I know there is controversy about the fact that Secretary Clinton got a larger number of the popular vote. I know the controversy that there were narrow victories in some of the States. But the fact is that no one in their right mind has challenged the fact that the President of the United States, whose inauguration took place today, is the President of the United States.

So why would we want to--right out of the box, right out of the box, right immediately, at an incredibly controversial time--block a member of his Cabinet who needs to take charge with the confidence of the U.S. Senate that he will do a job and, frankly, restore--whether you happen to like the outgoing team or not. And if you want to praise them, fine; if you want to support them, fine. But the fact is, there is a huge controversy about our intelligence community. In fact, some of that, in my view, has been contributed to by the now-President of the United States with his comments about the intelligence community.

But on both sides of the aisle, we respect and admire Congressman Pompeo, who is well qualified. Is there anyone who has said he is not qualified? Is there anyone on the other side who said that Pompeo is not qualified; we haven't examined his record enough? I don't think so. If so, I haven't heard it.

But is the message now: We are just going to slow-walk the Republicans because we don't like the outcome of the election? I don't think that is the message that I would like to send from our side.

Have we, on our side, slow-walked from time to time? Have we done everything right? I am not defending everything that we have done on this side. But I do argue that, in January of 2009, we confirmed seven members of the President's team on the first day.

I am glad to yield for a question.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be yielded an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I would just like to say to my friend from Texas, our leader, that there is enormous controversy about our intelligence community overall. Questions have been raised going all the way back to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, questions about what we know or don't know about Russian involvement in the last election.

It seems to me that all of the things that the Senator from Texas just said argue for a rapid transition to a person we all trust.

I would ask the Senator from Texas very quickly: Has he heard someone who objects to Congressman Pompeo assuming the role of Director of the

Respectfully and with high regard, I would just ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--let's get this intelligence team to work. Let's put them together. We will have outstanding individuals in a time when, in the view of most observers, this Nation is in greater peril than it has been in 70 years.

This is a very, very serious situation we find ourselves in. The people have spoken. Let's confirm them today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me just say to my colleagues that I have had the great honor in my life of knowing some outstanding military leaders. I consider it one of the highlights of my life being around one of these great leaders.

I want to share with my colleagues that I haven't seen a finer leader, a more outstanding and respected leader, and a more beloved leader than the man we are going to be voting on to be the Secretary of Defense, James Mattis.

My friends, I am very confident that when we finish this vote, the morale all over the U.S. military will go up because they will know they have a leader and a leader they can not only respect but they admire and in many cases have great affection for. So I urge my colleagues to vote aye on the Mattis nomination.

Mr. President, today on the steps of this Capitol, our Nation completed another peaceful transition of power and inaugurated a new President. This is a sacred rite of our democracy, one that so many have given their lives to make possible. And as free citizens, we should count ourselves fortunate to have witnessed it.

As our new Commander In Chief assumes the awesome responsibilities of his office and with threats to our national security growing in scope and severity, it is imperative that the Senate act quickly to provide advice and consent for the new cabinet, especially for the new Secretary of Defense.

Have no doubt: our adversaries will test us in the coming days and weeks. And when they do, I want our Commander In Chief to have Gen. James Mattis at his side.

I have had the privilege of knowing General Mattis for many years. He is, without a doubt, one of the finest military officers of his generation and an extraordinary leader who inspires a rare and special admiration of his troops. In fact, since his selection to be our next Secretary of Defense, I have received countless messages of support from those who had the honor of serving with him.

At his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Mattis demonstrated exceptional command of the issues confronting the United States, the Department of Defense, and our military servicemembers. He also showed that his understanding of civil-military relations is deep and that his commitment to civilian control of the Armed Forces is ironclad.

Over more than four decades of service, General Mattis's character, judgment, and commitment to defending our Nation and our Constitution have earned him the trust of Presidents, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and so many serving in our Armed Forces.

That is why the Senate Armed Services Committee approved General Mattis's nomination this Wednesday with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 26 to 1. I hope the Senate will follow suit with a strong vote to put General Mattis to work at the Pentagon. America will be fortunate to have General Mattis at her service once again.

I object. It is time for the vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask for 1 minute on the nomination.

Madam President, I know it is unnecessary, but I urge an ``aye'' vote on General Kelly. He is experienced. He is talented. He understands borders. He understands the challenges we face for our national security throughout the world. I strongly urge an ``aye'' vote for General Kelly.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I would say that I also agree. I want to thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his leadership, and I want to thank him for setting the tenor and the environment that surrounds the Armed Services Committee, which resulted in the 24-to-3 vote today in the Armed Services Committee. Because of the relationship that we have, but also because of his leadership, we have a very bipartisan committee, which is vital to maintain, considering the awesome responsibilities we hold.

The Senator from Rhode Island has displayed time after time a willingness to work together for the good of the country. I think this is the latest example, even though he had significant reservations-- which are valid--concerning the short period of transition from wearing the uniform to holding down the highest civilian position as far as defense of the Nation is concerned. I know he didn't reach this conclusion without a lot of thought, a lot of study, a lot of--as he has displayed--references to history; reasons for the origination of this legislation, which requires 7 years before an individual is eligible to be Secretary of Defense after leaving the military.

So I just wanted to thank the Senator from Rhode Island, and I look forward to an overwhelming vote.

Mr. President, could I ask the parliamentary situation as it is right now.

Mr. President, has a time been set for the vote?

I yield to my friend from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, is it accurate to say that 2:45 p.m. is a time that is being seriously considered?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 5 minutes prior to the vote, if the time of the vote is set, and the Senator from Rhode Island be given 5 minutes prior to that, in the case of the time of the vote being set.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to modify my unanimous consent request that I be allowed 5 minutes prior to the vote.

Order of Procedure

Before I do that, however, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 2:45 p.m. be equally divided between the managers or their designees, and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of S. 84; further, that following the disposition of S. 84, the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair for the all-Members briefing.

So I would ask the Senator from Oregon how much time he needs.

Mr. President, I am asking for a ruling on the unanimous consent request I just made.

Mr. President, I add to that unanimous consent request that I be given the final 5 minutes before the vote.

Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Oregon who asked if there were not any people who were qualified to serve as Secretary of Defense, I am absolutely certain there are. Is there anyone as qualified as General Mattis? My answer to the Senator from Oregon is no. I have watched General Mattis for years. I have seen the way that enlisted and officers react to his leadership. I have seen the scholarly approach he has taken to war and to conflict.

I hope the Senator from Oregon will have at some point a chance to get to know him, and he will then appreciate the unique qualities of leadership that are much needed in these times where the outgoing President of the United States has left the world in a state of chaos because of an absolute failure of leadership, which is disgraceful. We now see an outgoing President of the United States who in 2009 inherited a world that was not being torn apart in the Middle East. The Chinese were not acting assertively in the South China Sea. The Russians had not dismembered Ukraine and taken Crimea, in gross violation of international law. All of those things have come about because of his presidency.

So now he comes to the floor and objects to one of the most highly qualified individuals and leaders in military history. I say to the Senator from Oregon: You are wrong.

I believe the overwhelming majority of this body will repudiate and cancel out his uninformed remarks.

Mr. President, in a few minutes we will vote on a historic piece of legislation. For just the second time in seven decades, the legislation before us would provide an exception to the law preventing any person from serving as Secretary of Defense within 7 years of Active-Duty service as a regular commissioned officer of the Armed Forces. This legislation would allow Gen. James Mattis--the President-elect's selection for Secretary of Defense, who retired from the Marine Corps 3 years ago--to serve in that office.

Earlier today, the Senate Armed Services Committee received testimony from General Mattis. Once again, he demonstrated exceptional command of the issues confronting the United States, the Department of Defense, and our military servicemembers, but he also showed something else-- that his understanding of civil-military relations is deep and that his commitment to civilian control of the Armed Forces is ironclad.

General Mattis's character, judgment, and commitment to defending our Nation and its Constitution have earned him the trust of our next Commander in Chief, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and so many who are serving in our Armed Forces. General Mattis is an exceptional public servant worthy of the exceptional consideration. That is why, directly following the conclusion of today's hearing, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported this legislation to the Senate with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 24 to 3--I repeat: with an overwhelming vote of 24 to 3.

I am not saying that members of the Armed Services Committee are smarter than the Senator from Oregon, but I am saying that members of the Armed Services Committee have scrutinized--both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat, including the ranking member--have looked at General Mattis. Many of us have known him for years and years, as he has shown the outstanding characteristics of leadership that he has had the opportunity to display in his service to the country, and he was voted out by an overwhelming vote of 24 to 3. So obviously there are 24 people on the Armed Services Committee who believe in General Mattis and believe that this exception should be made, as opposed to 3 who share the view of the Senator from Oregon.

That is why, directly following the conclusion of today's hearing, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported this legislation to the Senate with a vote of 24 to 3. I urge this body to follow suit.

That said, it is important for future Senators to understand the context of our action here today. Civilian control of the Armed Forces has been a bedrock principle of American Government since our Revolution. A painting hanging in the Capitol Rotunda not far from this floor celebrates the legacy of George Washington, who voluntarily resigned his commission as commander of the Continental Army to the Congress. This principle is enshrined in our Constitution, which divides control of the Armed Forces among the President as Commander in Chief and the Congress as coequal branches of government.

Since then, Congress has adopted various provisions separating military and civilian positions. In the 19th century, for example, Congress prohibited an Army officer from accepting a civil office, more recently, in the National Security Act of 1947, and subsequent revisions, Congress's 7-year ``cooling off'' period for any person to serve as Secretary of Defense. It was only 3 years later, in 1950, that Congress granted GEN George Marshall an exemption to that law and the Senate confirmed him to be Secretary of Defense.

Indeed, the separation between civilian and military positions has not always been so clear. Twelve of our Nation's Presidents previously served as generals in the Armed Forces, and over the years, numerous high-ranking civilian officials in the Department of

Defense have had long careers in military service.

The basic responsibilities of civilian and military leaders are simple enough--for civilian leaders: to seek the best professional military advice while under no obligation to follow it; for military leaders: to provide candid counsel while recognizing civilians have the final say or, as General Mattis once observed, to insist on being heard and never insist on being obeyed. But the fact is that the relationship between civilian and military leaders is inherently and endlessly complex. It is a relationship of unequals who nonetheless share responsibility for the defense of the Nation. The stakes could not be higher. The gaps in mutual understanding are sometimes wide. Personalities often clash. And the unique features of the profession of arms and the peculiarities of service cultures often prove daunting for civilians who have never served in uniform.

Ultimately, the key to healthy civil-military relations and civilian control of the military is the oath that soldiers and statesmen share in common ``to protect and defend the Constitution.'' It is about the trust they have in one another to perform their respective duties in accordance with our republican system of government. It is about the candid exchange of views engendered by that trust and which is vital to effective decisionmaking. And it is about mutual respect and understanding. The proper balance of civil-military relations is difficult to achieve, and, as history has taught us, achieving that balance requires different leaders at different times.

I believe that in the dangerous times in which we live, General Mattis is the leader our Nation needs as Secretary of Defense. That is why, although I believe we must maintain safeguards of civilian leadership at the Department of Defense, I will support this legislation today and General Mattis' nomination to serve this Nation again as Secretary of Defense.

I want to assure my friend from Rhode Island, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, who has very serious concerns--I want to assure him that this is a one-time deal. I know the Senator from Rhode Island had deep concerns about this whole process we have been through. Yet I think he has put the interests of the Nation and placed his confidence in General Mattis as being so exceptional that the law that was passed back in 1947--there can be made one single exception to it.

Has time expired according to the previous UC?

I object.

Mr. President, the rules governing the procedures of the Committee on Armed Services have not changed for the 114th 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 to have printed in the Record a copy of the committee rules.

Mr. President, I rise to join my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, in supporting the nomination of Dr. Ash Carter to be Secretary of Defense. I am confident Senator Reed and I feel we have had a very good nomination hearing and that Dr. Carter is qualified to be the Secretary of Defense.

I have known Dr. Carter for many years during his lengthy service in Washington. He is one of America's most experienced defense professionals, respected by Republicans and Democrats alike.

He has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, and most recently as Deputy Secretary of Defense. In these positions, I have known him to be an honest, hard-working, and committed public servant. I have had the opportunity to work together with Dr. Carter on several issues of shared concern, especially trying to reform the Defense Acquisition System, improving financial management of the Department, and repealing and rolling back sequestration.

I was also pleased to hear Dr. Carter explain his views on a number of critical national security issues at his confirmation hearing earlier this month.

On Afghanistan Dr. Carter told the committee he would consider revisions to the size and pace of the President's drawdown plan if security conditions warranted. To achieve the success that is possible there, he urged the United States to ``continue its campaign and finish the job.''

Dr. Carter indicated he is very much inclined in the direction of providing defensive lethal arms to help Ukraine resist Russian aggression.

He pledged to do more to streamline and improve the Defense Acquisition System that takes too long and costs too much, and Dr. Carter agreed it is time to roll back sequestration because, in his words, ``it introduces turbulence and uncertainty that are wasteful, and it conveys a misleadingly diminished picture of our power in the eyes of friends and foes alike.''

America is confronted with a diverse and complex range of national security challenges. A revisionist Russia, a rising China, and radical Islamist groups each seeking in their own way to fundamentally challenge the international order as we have known it since the end of World War II, a system that cherishes the rule of law, maintains free markets and free trade, and relegates wars of aggression to their rightful place in the bloody past.

We need a coherent national security strategy incorporating all elements of America's national power to sustain and defend the international order that has produced and extended security, prosperity, and liberty across the globe.

We need to stop holding our military hostage to domestic political disputes and send an unmistakable message to friend and foe alike that America intends to lead in the 21st century by repealing sequestration immediately.

We need to reform our Defense Acquisition System to restore confidence that every defense dollar is spent well and to ensure that the men and women in uniform are getting the training and equipment they need on time and at a cost acceptable to the taxpayer.

That is why America needs a strong Secretary of Defense now more than ever. I think Dr. Carter will be a good Secretary of Defense, who will always keep faith with our men and women in uniform and work tirelessly on their behalf and that of our national security. I am hopeful about the prospects of working together with Dr. Carter, along with my colleagues in the Senate Committee on Armed Services on both sides of the aisle, to achieve our shared priorities, especially the reform of our Defense Acquisition System, the modernization of our military compensation system, and the repeal of sequestration.

But when it comes to much of our national security policy, I must candidly express concern about the task that awaits Dr. Carter and the limited influence he may have.

Two of his predecessors, Secretary Gates and Secretary Panetta, have severely criticized White House micromanagement of the Defense Department and overcentralization of foreign and defense policies. According to numerous news reports, Secretary Hagel experienced similar frustrations with the insular and indecisive White House national security team over issues ranging from ISIL to Ukraine, detention policy to sequestration.

Dr. Carter is a worthy choice for Secretary of Defense. He has the experience, knowledge, and skill to succeed. The Armed Services Committee voted unanimously to approve his nomination last week, and I will gladly vote to confirm him today. I do so with sincere hope, and sadly, little confidence that the President who nominated Dr. Carter will empower him to lead and contribute to the fullest extent of his abilities. At a time of global upheaval and multiplying threats to our security, the American people need and deserve nothing less.

I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for his cooperation and coordination with the hearing and for his input and influence which led to a unanimous vote from the committee.

I yield the floor for my friend and colleague from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I rise today to mourn the tragic death of 26-year-old humanitarian aid worker Kayla Jean Mueller of Prescott, AZ, who had been held by ISIL terrorists in Syria since August of 2013.

I am heartbroken for the Mueller family at the loss of their beautiful, beloved Kayla. The thoughts and prayers of the people of her home State of Arizona, our country, and the civilized world are with the Mueller family at this terrible hour.

I want to take the time today to share a bit of Kayla's story. This wonderful young woman represented the best of us. She had a remarkable impact on the lives of so many people who never had the honor of meeting her, and her story will forever be an inspiration to us.

Kayla attended high school at Tri-City College Prep in Prescott, AZ, where she was recognized as a National Young Leader and received the President's Award For Academic Excellence in 2007, the Yavapai County Community Foundation Youth Philanthropist of the Year Award in 2005, and the Gold Presidential Volunteer Award in 2007 for her volunteer efforts with Youth Count, AmeriCorps, America's Promise, Open Inn for troubled youth, Big Brothers Big Sisters, and other organizations.

After graduating from Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff in 2009, Kayla committed her life to helping people in need around the world--first in India, then Israel, the Palestinian territories, and back home in Prescott where she volunteered at an HIV-AIDS clinic, and a women's shelter. But it was the conflict in Syria that drew Kayla's greatest interest and, again, sparked her desire to help those in need. In a YouTube video she made in October 2011, as the Syrian civil war was just beginning, Kayla said:

I am in solidarity with the Syrian people. I reject the

brutality and killing that the Syrian authorities are

committing against the Syrian people. Because silence is

participation in this crime, I declare my participation in

the Syrian sit-in on YouTube.

In December 2012, Kayla traveled to the Turkish-Syrian border where she worked for months helping the thousands of Syrian refugees whose lives were torn apart by the humanitarian catastrophe created by Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian civil war.

According to her family, Kayla found this work heartbreaking but compelling. She was extremely devoted to the people of Syria and their struggle. Kayla explained to her family her call to service this way. She said:

I find God in the suffering eyes reflected in mine. If this

is how you are revealed to me, this is how I will forever

seek you. I will always seek God. Some people find God in

church. Some people find God in nature. Some people find God

in love; I find God in suffering. I've known for some time

what my life's work is, using my hands as tools to relieve

suffering.

When Kayla traveled back home to visit her family in Arizona in May of 2013, she spoke about her experiences at the Prescott Kiwanis Club where her father was a member. After recalling helping a Syrian man, whose wife had been murdered, to reunite with a 6-year-old relative he was desperately searching for after their refugee camp was bombed, Kayla said:

This story is not rare in Syria. This is the reality for

Syrians two and a half years on. When Syrians hear I'm an

American, they ask, ``Where is the world?'' All I can do is

cry with them, because I don't know.

After spending time with the refugees, Kayla told the Kiwanis Club she was totally drawn in, and that she ``can't do enough'' to help. She recalled stories of children being hurt by unexploded bombs, women forced into early marriages, elementary schools targeted for bombing by the Syrian regime, and people living in caves to escape the bombing.

Kayla went on. She said:

Syrians are dying by the thousands, and they're fighting

just to talk about the rights we have. . . . For as long as I

live, I will not let this suffering be normal. [I will not

let this be] something we just accept. It's important to stop

and realize what we have, why we have it and how privileged

we are. And from that place, start caring and get a lot done.

She described part of her work helping the Syrian children in the refugee camps--including drawing, painting, and playing with the children, many of whom were badly scarred physically and psychologically by the war.

She said:

We give and get joy from playing with these children. Half

the 1.5 million refugees the U.N. has registered are

children. In the chaos of waking up in the middle of the

night and being shelled, we're hearing of more children being

separated from their families by accident.

Asked by Kiwanis members what her recommendations for addressing the conflict were, Kayla said, ``A no-fly zone over refugee camps would be number one.''

Kayla also believed if the terrible reality of the conflict were better known to Americans, our Nation would be more heavily engaged. ``The people of the United States would see that something needs to be done,'' she said.

Today the Mueller family released a letter written to them by Kayla in the spring of 2014. I want to read a bit of it to give a sense of this young woman, her deep faith in God, her profound love for her family, and her remarkable strength in the face of grave danger.

She wrote: I remember mom always telling me that all in all, in the end the only one you really have is God. I have come to a place in experience where, in every sense of the word, I have surrendered myself to our Creator because literally there was no one else. By God and by your prayers, I have felt tenderly cradled in free fall. I have been shown in darkness and light and have learned that even in prison one can be free. I am grateful. I have to see that there is good in every situation; sometimes we just have to look for it. I pray each day that, if nothing else, you have felt a certain closeness and surrender to God as well and have formed a bond of love and support amongst one another. I miss you all as if it had been a decade of forced separation.

Kayla closed with these words: The thought of your pain is the source of my own. Simultaneously, the hope of our reunion is the source of my strength. Please be patient. Give your pain to God. I know you would want me to remain strong. That is exactly what I am doing. Do not fear for me; continue to pray, as will I. By God's will we will be together soon. All my everything, Kayla.

In a statement today, the Mueller family reflected on Kayla's life and their commitment to work every day to honor her legacy:

Kayla was a compassionate and devoted humanitarian. She

dedicated the whole of her young life to helping those in

need of freedom, justice and peace. Kayla was drawn to help

those displaced by the Syrian civil war. She first traveled

to Turkey in December 2012 to provide humanitarian aid to

Syrian refugees. She told us of the great joy she took in

helping Syrian children and their families. We are so proud

of the person Kayla was and the work she did while she was

here with us. She lived with purpose and we will work every

day to honor her legacy. Our hearts are breaking for our only

daughter, but we will continue on in peace, dignity and love

for her.

On behalf of the people of Arizona and the Congress of the United States, I express our deepest condolences to Kayla's parents, Marsha and Carl Mueller, her loving family, and many friends. Our thoughts and prayers are with you. Kayla devoted her young life to helping people in need around the world, to healing the sick, and bringing light to some of the darkest and most desperate places on Earth. She will never be forgotten.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter written by Kayla during her imprisonment to her family be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Foreign Earnings Reinvestment Act that would generate the flow of an estimated $1.9 trillion back into the American economy by temporarily allowing companies to return profits earned overseas to the U.S. at a reduced tax rate. It is no secret that one of the primary reasons why this money is laying idle and doing nothing to spur job creation is due to the fact that our Nation has the highest corporate tax rate in the free world at 35 percent. According to the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, OECD, when you add in additional State and local taxes the combined corporate rate jumps to a staggering 39.1 percent. Whereas, the average combined corporate tax rate for the rest of the developed world, excluding the U.S. is around 25 percent.

Congress has long debated tax reform and has failed to act. It is my hope that, under a Republican controlled Congress, we will be able to move forward with tax reform, which includes lowering both the personal and corporate tax rate and eliminating tax loopholes. If we are not going to act on behalf of the American taxpayer than we need to make available temporary tax incentives to bring this money back home providing a much needed boost to our economy.

The Foreign Earnings Reinvestment Act would encourage American companies to bring overseas earnings back to the United States and creates strong incentives for those firms to invest these earnings in U.S. employees.

Specifically, the bill would temporarily reduce the current 35 percent corporate rate to an 8.75 percent effective rate on foreign earnings brought back to the United States. If companies are able to show that they are expanding their payroll by 10 percent through net job creation or higher payroll, the bill would allow these corporations to obtain up to a 5.25 percent effective repatriation rate In addition, the bill discourages U.S. companies from reducing employment by including in a company's gross income calculation of $75,000 per full- time position that is eliminated.

This common sense legislation will drive the roughly $1.9 trillion currently parked overseas back here to the United States, boosting our economy and spurring job creation.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Foreign Earnings Reinvestment Act that would generate the flow of an estimated $1.9 trillion back into the American economy by temporarily allowing companies to return profits earned overseas to the U.S. at a reduced tax rate. It is no secret that one of the primary reasons why this money is laying idle and doing nothing to spur job creation is due to the fact that our Nation has the highest corporate tax rate in the free world at 35 percent. According to the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, OECD, when you add in additional State and local taxes the combined corporate rate jumps to a staggering 39.1 percent. Whereas, the average combined corporate tax rate for the rest of the developed world, excluding the U.S. is around 25 percent.

Congress has long debated tax reform and has failed to act. It is my hope that, under a Republican controlled Congress, we will be able to move forward with tax reform, which includes lowering both the personal and corporate tax rate and eliminating tax loopholes. If we are not going to act on behalf of the American taxpayer than we need to make available temporary tax incentives to bring this money back home providing a much needed boost to our economy.

The Foreign Earnings Reinvestment Act would encourage American companies to bring overseas earnings back to the United States and creates strong incentives for those firms to invest these earnings in U.S. employees.

Specifically, the bill would temporarily reduce the current 35 percent corporate rate to an 8.75 percent effective rate on foreign earnings brought back to the United States. If companies are able to show that they are expanding their payroll by 10 percent through net job creation or higher payroll, the bill would allow these corporations to obtain up to a 5.25 percent effective repatriation rate In addition, the bill discourages U.S. companies from reducing employment by including in a company's gross income calculation of $75,000 per full- time position that is eliminated.

This common sense legislation will drive the roughly $1.9 trillion currently parked overseas back here to the United States, boosting our economy and spurring job creation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Mr. President, today I rise to speak on the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act, a most important piece of legislation. I would like to thank Senator Isakson in particular for expediting this legislation through the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I admire his leadership. I admire his commitment to the veterans of America. It has been a pleasure to know him and to serve in the Senate with an advocate for our American veterans.

I would also like to thank Senator Blumenthal, whose partnership I have been with for a long period of time. Without his leadership and support, this legislation would not be coming to the floor.

Every day approximately 22 American veterans commit suicide, totaling over 8,000 veteran suicides each year. I repeat: 8,000 veteran suicides each year. It is evident by these staggering numbers that our military and veterans affairs programs are not effectively treating post- traumatic stress disorder, known as PTSD, and other mental health illnesses that can lead to suicide. There are too many disconnected and ineffective treatment programs, and as a result our service men and women are suffering from the bureaucracy.

Against this backdrop, I wish to highlight the story of Clay Hunt, for whom this proposed legislation is named. Clay enlisted in the Marine Corps in May of 2005, deployed to Al Anbar Province near Fallujah in January 2007.

During that deployment Clay Hunt was shot in the wrist by a sniper's bullet that barely missed his head, a wound for which he received a Purple Heart. Despite having been wounded, Clay Hunt volunteered and graduated from Marine Corps Scout Sniper School in March 2008.

After another deployment to Afghanistan, Clay was honorably discharged from the marines in April 2009. After returning home, Clay suffered from the effects of PTSD for many years and struggled with inadequate care at his

local VA hospital. Subsequently, Clay took his own life in March 2011 at the age of 28. Clay is only one example of veterans who are trying to make their way in our country today, but who suffer, more so than they have to, because of Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs mismanagement of resources for suicide prevention and mental health treatment.

This bipartisan bill will lay the foundation for improved mental health care and better suicide prevention resources for our American servicemembers. Specifically, this bill would require an independent evaluation of existing suicide prevention programs at the DOD and VA, gauge their effectiveness, and make recommendations for consolidation, elimination, or improvement.

Additionally, this legislation would establish a new single Web site that provides information for veterans regarding available mental health care services, create a pilot loan repayment program to recruit more psychiatrists to treat veterans at the VA, improve the exchange of training best practices and other resources among the VA and nonprofit mental health organizations, create a community outreach pilot program to assist with and mitigate the stressors of servicemembers transitioning to civilian life, and provide a 1-year extension for certain combat veterans to enroll in the VA.

Our Nation has a moral obligation to identify, resource, and make available to our veterans effective forms of treatment to help eliminate suicide resulting from severe combat-related psychological trauma. This bill is an important step to improve the care we provide to the men and women who have sacrificed for all of us and to whom we are forever indebted. We owe it to these brave men and women to act now.

Obviously I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.

The President's Budget

Mr. President, I would like to briefly discuss the President's budget request for fiscal year 2016 as it relates to the Veterans' Administration. In this year's budget request, the President has stated he will submit legislation to reallocate part of the funding for the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014, legislation he signed into law just last August, to other programs within the VA.

In other words, he wants to take money from the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act and put it into other programs within the VA--a bill we just passed last August. It clearly suggests that the President of the United States is disconnected from the needs of our veterans and he may be more solicitous about supporting a bloated, demonstrably dysfunctional bureaucracy than ensuring that quality care is available to our veterans.

Our veterans have suffered long enough with wait times and scheduling delays at the VA, and deserve to have the right to choose where and when they get their health care. Taking funding away from this legislation, especially the choice card, shows a complete disregard for our veterans' well-being and the service they provide to our country.

If or when this legislative proposal comes to the Hill, I would urge my colleagues to vote against it--in fact, not even consider it.

I want to thank my colleagues. I am sure we will have an overwhelming vote today. I think it is an important step forward.

I would like to thank all of the veterans organizations and veterans advocates who have made the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention Act for American Veterans a reality. But I would also like to urge my colleagues to understand that this problem, this serious problem, of 8,000 veteran suicides each year is not going away anytime soon. So do not believe the passage of this legislation will somehow be a cure-all. That can only come through long and persistent efforts and care and concern for our veterans who have given so much to their country. So I am very honored to be a part of this legislation.

Again, I want to thank the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the ranking member, Senator Sanders. I would like to thank Senator Burr, who was ranking member previously.

My friends, we have a long way to go. We have a lot of young men who have not been able to come all the way home. It is our job and our obligation to do everything we possibly can not only to honor them but to see that they have a safe and secure future, and one in which the thought of suicide would never be any consideration.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.