Floor Statements

Mr. President, on one final matter, I would like to take a brief moment to recognize a talented member of the Senate community who will be retiring this month after 20 years of service to this body and to the Nation.

Nancy Kervin is a reference librarian in the Senate Library, and for years, whenever my office needed assistance with a seemingly impossible research question, she was always ready to lend a helping hand. I could not let her depart without giving her the recognition that she so richly deserves.

Nancy came to the Senate following a wide-ranging career in publishing and in research, and through her work here, Nancy has made a lasting mark.

To members of my staff and to numerous others around the Senate, Nancy has been the first person to call when facing a difficult research question. Nancy's signature combination of intellectual rigor and unyielding perseverance has enabled her to skillfully complete countless research projects on numerous subjects throughout her time in the Senate, and, of course, she is widely known for her kindness and her good humor.

My office has worked closely with Nancy on a number of different projects over the years, but there is one project--a project of particular personal importance to me--that I would like to mention today.

A number of years ago, I began a series of lectures at Kentucky colleges and universities focusing on the lives and legacies of prominent U.S. Senators from the Commonwealth. Since the project's inception, my staff has regularly looked to Nancy for help. She has been an indispensable resource for each historical speech in Kentucky that I have delivered. Her work in gathering sources and putting the information in its proper context has helped me to pay tribute to many distinguished Kentuckians. Therefore, it is fitting that she holds the highest honor that my State can bestow upon a civilian, that of a Kentucky colonel.

After her years of dedicated service, Nancy deserves a relaxing retirement. Along with her husband, Stephen--another stalwart member of the Senate family who will be retiring from the Senate Historical Office--Nancy plans to spend time traveling and working in her garden. She will be sorely missed here.

On behalf of the entire Senate family, I congratulate Nancy and Stephen on their successful careers in promoting the history and the legacy of this Chamber and those who have served in it. I wish them both happy retirements.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on final passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. This is the culmination of months of bipartisan work, and it is a product in which all Senators and all Americans can take great pride. I want to thank, once again, my friend and colleague the Senator from Rhode Island. His partnership on this legislation has been invaluable.

The fundamental purpose of this legislation, which has united Senators from both sides of the aisle, is to provide our Armed Forces what they need to do the jobs we ask of them. We, in this body, have no higher duty than to do everything we can to support our fellow Americans who serve and sacrifice every day to keep us safe.

This legislation does that. It keeps faith with our men and women in uniform. It supports a national defense budget of $700 billion for fiscal year 2018, which exceeds the administration's request by $37 billion and the defense spending caps in the Budget Control Act by $91 billion. The decision of the Committee on Armed Services to authorize these additional resources was unanimous and bipartisan, and it is a significant statement on the troubling state of our military today.

My friends, for too long, our Nation has asked our men and women in uniform to do too much with far too little. Much of the blame lies with the last administration, but we in Congress cannot escape responsibility. Our military's job is hard enough, but we are making it harder through continuing resolutions, unpredictable funding, and arbitrary spending caps that we put into law 6 years ago before the rise of ISIS, before the current crisis with North Korea, before Russia's return to aggression on the world stage, and before so many other dangerous developments.

We have been warned--we have been warned, my friends--that we can't go on like this. We have been warned. Earlier this year, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, warned us: ``In just a few years if we don't change the trajectory, we will lose our qualitative and our quantitative competitive edge, [and] the consequences will be profound.'' The Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis,

also warned us, saying: ``We are no longer managing risk; we are now gambling.''

We are gambling, my friends. We are gambling with the lives of the best among us, and we are now seeing the cost--the tragic but foreseeable cost--of an overworked, strained force, with aging equipment and not enough of it.

On June 17, seven sailors were killed when the USS Fitzgerald collided with a container ship off the coast of Japan. On July 10, a Marine KC-130 crash in Mississippi killed all 16 troops on board. On August 5, an Osprey helicopter crash off the coast of Australia resulted in the deaths of three Marines. On August 15, an Army helicopter crashed off the coast of Hawaii, with five soldiers presumed dead. On August 21, 10 sailors perished when the USS McCain collided with a tanker near Singapore. On August 25, an Army Black Hawk helicopter went down during a training mission off the coast of Yemen, and one soldier died. Earlier this month in Nevada, two Air Force A-10 aircraft crashed into each other. Thank God the pilots safely ejected, but the planes were lost, at a cost of over $100 million.

Just last week--just last week, as we debated this legislation--there were additional accidents. Last Tuesday, one soldier died during helicopter training at Fort Hood. Last Wednesday, an amphibious vehicle explosion at Camp Pendleton injured 15 marines. Last Thursday, a demolition accident at Fort Bragg killed another soldier and injured seven others.

My friends, more of our men and women in uniform are now being killed in totally avoidable training accidents and routine operations than by our enemies in combat. Let me repeat that. More of our men and women in uniform are now being killed in totally avoidable training accidents and routine operations than by our enemies in combat.

Where is the outrage? Where is our sense of urgency to deal with this problem? Congress can criticize this administration or the last administration all we want, and there is plenty of blame to go around, but the constitutional responsibility is to ``raise and support Armies'' and ``provide and maintain a Navy.'' That responsibility is ours. How can we believe that we are meeting our responsibilities when young Americans in uniform are not receiving the necessary resources and capabilities to perform their missions? My friends, that blame rests with us, the Congress.

I know many of my colleagues agree. I have heard them--both Republicans and Democrats--speak for years about the harmful effects sequestration is having on our military and many other Federal agencies with a national security mission. How do we explain our failure to deal with this problem last week? We had an opportunity. This legislation was open for amendments under regular order for an entire week. There was an amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas to repeal sequestration. The amendment was written in a bipartisan way and would have ended sequestration, not only for defense but nondefense spending as well. We had an opportunity to tell all of our men and women in uniform that the Senate finally was doing everything it could to support them. We had an opportunity, and we failed. Worse than that, we didn't even try. We couldn't even agree to vote.

It makes me so angry, but more than that it makes me sad. It breaks my heart.

How do we explain our failure to our men and women who are serving? How do we explain to Americans who are risking their lives for us that we could not summon the courage to take some hard votes? How can we explain we couldn't come together and vote together when it mattered most? How do we explain the signal our inaction sends to all who are serving that Congress has higher priorities than rebuilding our military? We should be ashamed of ourselves.

For those of you who will soon vote for this National Defense Authorization Act, which will authorize the necessary resources to begin rebuilding our military, let me thank you; let me thank you; let me thank you. You can be proud that you are voting for a good piece of legislation, but this legislation is only part of the solution. We still have no path to actually appropriate the money that we are about to authorize. That requires a bipartisan agreement to adjust the spending caps in the Budget Control Act.

For all of you who will join me in voting to authorize these vital additional resources for our military, I would also urge you to join me in demanding and passing a bipartisan agreement so that we can appropriate those resources. This will require some hard work. It will require some teamwork and some trust in each other. It will require having the courage of our convictions. But in the end, it will require much less of us than the service and sacrifice we ask every day from our men and women in uniform, which they so dutifully provide us.

I do not want to have to call another grieving mother or father or spouse after their loved one has perished in a mishap that might have been prevented if Congress had done its job. Let's find a way to appropriate the resources for our military that we will soon authorize. Our men and women in uniform deserve no less.

Mr. President, I will suggest a short quorum call while we get these final agreed-upon amendments on the bill at this time. It shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 2810, as amended, be printed as passed by the Senate.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 176, William J. Emanuel.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Illinois.

Mr President, for decades, I have supported the Appalachian Regional Commission, or ARC, and its mission to invest in communities to strengthen economic growth throughout the Appalachian region.

As I have expressed before, however, I have grown frustrated by ARC's shortcomings. Last year, the Senate considered an amendment to abolish ARC entirely. I voted against that proposal because I believe that the Commission still serves an important purpose, but since that time I've been calling on ARC to clarify its clouded focus.

For instance, because of ARC's own rules, the most distressed counties in the region can only receive up to 30% of its area development funds. In other words, a substantial portion of the agency's resources--which should be focused on alleviating poverty--are intentionally directed away from the counties most in need of help. This has been a criticism leveled against ARC for years. I believe that, if ARC serves a valid purpose today, then it is to assist the most impoverished counties in the region.

Moreover, while the other regional commissions are headquartered in the areas for which they're designed to serve, ARC maintains its primary office right here in Washington, D.C. An expensive office near Dupont Circle, far

away from the people and the communities it serves, is not the right place for ARC.

Today, I will introduce legislation along with my friend and longtime ARC champion, Congressman Hal Rogers, to make desperately needed reforms at ARC. Our bill is designed to reform the Commission, to focus its mission on investing more in the poorest Appalachian communities, and to direct ARC's leadership to relocate the organization to the region it serves.

These common-sense reforms will help set ARC on a path toward fulfilling what should be its central mission--poverty alleviation--and delivering vital assistance to those who need it the most. I hope that all of my colleagues will join with me to move this legislation forward and provide necessary relief to communities in Appalachia.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr President, for decades, I have supported the Appalachian Regional Commission, or ARC, and its mission to invest in communities to strengthen economic growth throughout the Appalachian region.

As I have expressed before, however, I have grown frustrated by ARC's shortcomings. Last year, the Senate considered an amendment to abolish ARC entirely. I voted against that proposal because I believe that the Commission still serves an important purpose, but since that time I've been calling on ARC to clarify its clouded focus.

For instance, because of ARC's own rules, the most distressed counties in the region can only receive up to 30% of its area development funds. In other words, a substantial portion of the agency's resources--which should be focused on alleviating poverty--are intentionally directed away from the counties most in need of help. This has been a criticism leveled against ARC for years. I believe that, if ARC serves a valid purpose today, then it is to assist the most impoverished counties in the region.

Moreover, while the other regional commissions are headquartered in the areas for which they're designed to serve, ARC maintains its primary office right here in Washington, D.C. An expensive office near Dupont Circle, far

away from the people and the communities it serves, is not the right place for ARC.

Today, I will introduce legislation along with my friend and longtime ARC champion, Congressman Hal Rogers, to make desperately needed reforms at ARC. Our bill is designed to reform the Commission, to focus its mission on investing more in the poorest Appalachian communities, and to direct ARC's leadership to relocate the organization to the region it serves.

These common-sense reforms will help set ARC on a path toward fulfilling what should be its central mission--poverty alleviation--and delivering vital assistance to those who need it the most. I hope that all of my colleagues will join with me to move this legislation forward and provide necessary relief to communities in Appalachia.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today the Senators will keep working to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, the legislation that authorizes the resources, capabilities, pay, and benefits that our servicemembers rely on to be successful.

The operational missions and tasks ahead for our men and women in uniform are as profuse as they are challenging. That is why it is essential that we meet our commitment to them by providing the equipment and the training they need to accomplish their missions. We should always remember that we have an all-volunteer force, and, in turn, we must support our warriors with the pay and benefits they and their families count on at home. This National Defense Authorization Act touches on every one of these issues.

We have already made an initial downpayment toward rebuilding the military and restoring combat readiness with the spring funding bill. Let's take this opportunity to add to that progress now.

As Chairman McCain pointed out yesterday, this bill is the product of hard work from both sides. In committee, Republicans and Democrats offered scores of amendments that were ultimately adopted to the bill that is before us, and all 27 of the Armed Services Committee members voted favorably to report this bill out. So there is no reason it shouldn't earn the same kind of bipartisan backing from the full Senate now.

I look forward to taking a vote in support of the men and women in uniform who courageously put their lives on the line to protect and defend each of us. As I do so, I will be thinking of the servicemembers and their families back in my home State of Kentucky, and I know so many other colleagues will be thinking of the servicemembers in their home States and those deployed abroad as well.

Let's keep working to bring this Defense authorization bill over the finish line.

Mr. President, in recent weeks the plight of the Rohingya has received great international attention. Even in the best of times, this beleaguered ethnic minority has eked out a marginal existence in Burma's Rakhine State. The Rohingya are stateless and have faced discrimination and isolation. Media reports indicate that their existence has gotten much worse over the past several weeks.

I am deeply troubled by the humanitarian situation along the Burmese- Bangladesh border and the violence in the Rakhine State must stop. But as I stated earlier this week, in my view, publicly condemning Aung San Suu Kyi--the best hope for democratic reform in Burma--is simply not constructive.

Yesterday I had a chance to speak with Suu Kyi on the phone. I would emphasize that she is the same person she was before. Her position in the Burmese Government is an exceedingly difficult one; she is State Counsellor. But, by law, her civilian government has virtually no authority over the

Burmese military. According to the Burmese Constitution, the Army is essentially autonomous, and it has control on the ground of the Rohingya situation.

Unfounded criticism of Suu Kyi exaggerates her ability to command the military, which the Burmese Constitution does not actually allow her to do, and the political evolution of representative government in that country is certainly not over. She must work--and is working--to promote peace and reconciliation within her national context. But Burma's path toward a democratic government is not yet complete, and it will not miraculously occur overnight.

I would like to report to the Senate that during our call, Daw Suu agreed with the need for immediate and improved access of humanitarian assistance to the region, particularly by the International Red Cross, and she conveyed that she is working toward that end. She reiterated her view of the universality of human dignity and the pressing need to pursue peace and reconciliation among the communities in Rakhine State.

Daw Suu emphasized to me that violations of human rights will need to be addressed. Moreover, she stressed that the situation in the Rakhine State is a protracted, longstanding problem and that she is trying very hard to improve conditions. We will soon receive a follow-on briefing from her office.

Right now, the most important thing is for the violence of the Rakhine State to stop and to try to ensure the rapid flow of humanitarian aid through both Burma and Bangladesh to the affected areas to help the Rohingyan refugees and internally displaced persons. That is where our focus should be.

Burma's path to representative government is not at all certain, and it certainly is not over. Attacking the single political leader who has worked to further democracy within Burma is likely to hinder that objective over the long run.

Mr. President, comprehensive tax reform represents the single most important action we can take now to grow the economy and help middle-class families get ahead. It is the President's high priority. It is a priority we share here in Congress. The work of the tax-writing committees on tax reform goes back literally years, and it continues today.

This morning, the Senate Finance Committee will hold another in a series of hearings on comprehensive tax reform. Under the leadership of Chairman Hatch, the committee is working to simplify the tax system to make it work better for American individuals, families, and businesses. As Chairman Hatch knows, our current Tax Code is overly complex, with rates that are too high and incentives that often literally make no sense.

Senator Hatch understands how our broken code makes it harder for American businesses of all sizes to compete and win in an increasingly competitive global economy--how it actually incentivizes our companies to ship operations and American jobs overseas. Chairman Hatch and colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand how our broken code makes it harder for middle-class families to succeed--how it depresses wages, weighs down job creation, and crushes opportunity.

It is time to fundamentally rethink our Tax Code to make taxes lower, simpler, and fairer for American families. Fortunately, we have a once- in-a-generation opportunity to do that.

This morning's hearing in the Senate Finance Committee is a part of the wide-ranging conversation to shift the economy into high gear after 8 years of an Obama economy that too often hurt the middle class and seemed to hardly work for anyone but the ultrawealthy.

With lower taxes and a growing economy, jobs can come back from overseas and stay here, families can keep more money in their pockets to spend in the way they want to, and individuals can have access to more opportunities to buy a new home, to start a new business, or to send their kids to college. To put it simply: Our efforts are about more jobs, more opportunity, and more money in the pockets of the middle class.

Without tax reform, American families will be forced to continue living under an unfair Tax Code with rates that are too high, American jobs will continue to be shipped overseas, and small businesses will be increasingly uncompetitive against foreign companies. That does not benefit the middle class. These are the real consequences of the current Tax Code, and we should all want to work together to put an end to it. Our friends on the other side of the aisle say they support comprehensive reform of the system, and I hope they will join us in this effort in a serious way.

Finally, I thank President Trump and his team for their work throughout this tax process. We will continue to regularly engage with them, working together to bring relief to the American people.

I also thank Chairman Hatch for his leadership on this issue. Along with my colleagues, I will keep working to deliver relief and economic hope to our middle class.

Madam President, I have just spoken with Chairman McCain about the status of the Defense bill. He and Senator Reed have already processed more than 100 amendments to the bill with broad bipartisan input. Unfortunately, the two sides have now reached an impasse on further amendments. Senator McCain has offered a reasonable list that could have been voted on this afternoon, but it appears we are not able to enter that agreement because of issues unrelated to NDAA. Therefore, it is my hope that we can move to finish the bill sooner rather than later and vote to invoke cloture this afternoon.

The Senate will vote on a critical HUD nomination after lunch, and it is my hope that we can move the cloture vote on NDAA to occur in that stack after lunch.

Our next order of business will be, following the Defense authorization bill, the nomination of the Solicitor General. This is the person in the Justice Department who argues before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court October term begins shortly.

Order of Procedure

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar No. 109, as under the previous order, and that following disposition of the nomination, the Senate resume legislative session and consideration of H.R. 2810.

Madam President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 105, Noel Francisco.

Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

Madam President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding rule XXII, that at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, September 18, the McCain amendment No. 545 be withdrawn, the Senate adopt the McCain substitute amendment No. 1003, as modified, and the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on H.R. 2810; further, that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be considered expired and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the en bloc consideration of the following nominations: Executive Calendar Nos. 280, 281, 283, 284, 285, 286, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, and 310.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc with no intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc; the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that no further motions be in order, and that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record.