Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, at some point during the course of this debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, the Senate may have an opportunity to vote on a McCain amendment authorizing a base realignment and closure round.

As Members know, I have the utmost respect for the chairman of our committee, and I hold him in high regard. But I will certainly be voting against the McCain amendment because I do not believe authorizing a base realignment and closure round at this particular time is in the best interests of the United States or the security of Americans. I do that for two reasons.

No. 1, whether you agree or not that base closings are a savings in the long run, almost everyone will agree that in the short term, a base closing round costs money. So it would be costly in the next fiscal year and in the fiscal year after that to have a base closing round. This is the very time when we don't need an additional expense, because we are dealing with the readiness problem we have in our various branches right now.

As chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, I can tell you that we have readiness problems with our fleet; we have readiness problems in the Marine Corps--those services in which I have a particular interest in my subcommittee. We need that money for readiness, and we need it in this fiscal year and in the next fiscal year. So for reasons of the short-term costs that BRAC would cause us to incur, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the McCain amendment.

Further, it is my understanding that the wording of this particular amendment takes away the commission part of a base realignment and closure round. If you do believe we ought to move toward this concept-- which I do not believe we should do at this point--but if you do believe that, then we ought to at least have the independence that a commission gives to the process. It is the sort of process we have had time and again when we have had a BRAC round. It is what we had the last time the U.S. Congress faced a base realignment and closure round.

So for those two reasons, I submit to my colleagues that a ``no'' vote is called for. This is something we may need to discuss in 2020. It may be something we need to do later on, and I will be open to suggestions about that. But when we have a readiness crisis facing U.S. security at this moment, this is no time to be taking money away from those immediate needs. For that reason, I will be voting no on the McCain amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my esteemed colleague from Delaware says that we have plenty to do when we get back, and he is, certainly, correct. I would join many of my colleagues today, though, in pointing out that in the last 3 days, we have actually gotten substantial work done. Perhaps we have crammed into 3 days what using the regular order and the filibuster and the motions to proceed might have taken 3 weeks otherwise. So the leadership on both sides of the aisle are to be commended for this burst of progress we have made, and I hope we can continue that when we get back.

Earlier today, this Congress passed a significant piece of legislation offered by the Senator who occupies the Chair, my good friend, Senator Johnson of Wisconsin. It is the Right to Try Act, which seeks to streamline the way people who are willing to take a bit of a chance on a drug in order to save their lives--streamline the way they can have access to perhaps life-enhancing and lifesaving drugs. It is a real achievement. I congratulate my colleague from Wisconsin and congratulate the leadership facilitating this breakthrough.

Moments later, the Senate passed a companion bill authored by Senator Klobuchar and me known as the Better Empowerment Now to Enhance Framework and Improve Treatments Act or the BENEFIT Act. This is another win for patients--patients who deserve to have a voice in the drug approval process. This bill, which is a companion bill to the very important Right to Try Act, will do that.

The BENEFIT Act calls for a simple amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act--one that could make a big difference to patients whose lives may depend on a new therapy or drug. Specifically, the Wicker- Klobuchar bill would require the use of patient experience and patient- focused drug development and related data in assessing the risk versus the benefit of these particular therapies.

The bill also includes information from patient advocacy groups and academic institutions. This is a small but important step forward.

If signed into law--and I certainly hope the House passes it and I hope the President will sign it into law--this bill would greatly enhance the data and information available to FDA when reviewing drugs, when reviewing medical products, and when reviewing therapies. It would also add to the progress Congress has made in recent years, reaffirming the importance of patients' perspectives in drug decisions--decisions that can have a profound and lasting impact on the lives of these patients. Ask any American who suffers from a disease or who is watching a loved one suffer, and they will tell us that all information should be on the table when a breakthrough or a cure is at stake.

Last year, Senator Klobuchar and I joined together to make the FDA's use of patient perspectives more transparent with what we call the Patient-Focused Impact Assessment Act. This was passed and was signed into law as part of the 21st Century Cures Act.

The BENEFIT Act, passed by the Senate today, would keep that momentum going, building on the progress we have made.

Now, what progress have we made? Let me tell my colleagues this. For years, I have sought to find a cure for the devastating, fatal disease known as Duchenne muscular dystrophy. I have worked on this issue since my early years in the House of Representatives. Young boys--almost all males--is whom this affects. These young boys face this fatal disease, and they know better than anyone what a drug can do to improve the quality of their lives.

Since the Congress passed and the President signed the MD-CARE Act dealing with Duchenne muscular dystrophy more than 15 years ago, research has led to innovative therapies

that have added a decade to the lives of these young boys. What an achievement by scientists in America. What an achievement for the government to have unleashed cures and research in this area.

We need their voices heard, we need their stories heard, and we need the voices of patients with other diseases heard.

I thank my colleagues in the Senate for joining with us on a unanimous consent request to pass this legislation. I thank the leadership on this side of the aisle and our Democratic counterparts on the other side.

Particular appreciation goes to Senator Alexander, the chairman of the HELP Committee, and to Senator Murray, the ranking Democrat on the HELP Committee, for their valuable help. Appreciation goes to perhaps a new attitude for the rest of the year in the Senate to join together with unanimous consent and move bills and nominations forward that have widespread support and consensus around the country.

I congratulate the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Wisconsin, on an outstanding achievement, and I congratulate the Senate for joining with Senator Klobuchar and me to help out in another way.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 17, S. 19.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 19, S. 96.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 77, S. 174.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 117, S. 134.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 164, S. 123.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 113, S. 88.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Fischer substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, and the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, let me congratulate my colleague from Oklahoma for a very fine statement, and let me associate myself with each and every word and each and every fact he outlined in his very fine statement, and also with the remarks of my friend from Missouri who went before him. I appreciate their leadership on this issue.

Let me, at this point, also give a salute to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, to the right of freedom of speech, which we have seen exercised in this building and in this Nation during the course of this debate, and the freedom granted to petition the government for address of grievances. We have seen examples of that. They have been on full display in this healthcare debate, a phase of which will come to a close I hope this evening.

Let me give a shout out to our staff members. They have fielded thousands, if not tens of thousands, of phone calls, letters, emails, and visits from Americans exercising their rights under the First Amendment. Americans have come to their Capital City, almost all of them in an appropriate and nondisruptive way--sometimes intense, for sure--expressing their opinions but also in display of their First Amendment rights.

After all the debate, all the conversation, and all the exhortation on this issue, we have seen a lot of things said from the floor and a lot of things said on the news media that have amounted to a matter of opinion. But here is one thing I know for a fact. For four straight elections--2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016--Republicans ran on a promise to repeal and replace ObamaCare. We ran on that platform, and for four straight elections Republicans prevailed at the ballot box on the strength of that platform. I know that for a fact, and this I believe. Millions of Americans are at work today or at home or getting home from their offices, from their shops, from their factories. They are turning on the media. They are checking online. They are turning on the radio. They are wondering if a campaign promise is going to be kept by this party to which they have given the reins of government in four straight elections.

We are close to keeping that promise. We are closer than we have ever been, and we can take a big step tonight on making good on that promise. That is not just a matter of keeping a promise, but I will say to my colleagues that it is important this platform be honored.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 additional minutes if there are no other people on the other side asking for consent.

So we are keeping a promise, but there is a lot more to it, as my friend from Oklahoma outlined, not only in fact but also in stories from honest-to-goodness Americans.

This debate is about keeping Americans from hurting, about relieving the pain that this 2009 ACA has caused people to have. They were told they could keep their doctors. They wanted to keep their doctors, and it turns out they lost their doctors. They were told they could keep their healthcare plans. They liked their healthcare plans, and, in fact, they were not able to keep their healthcare plans. They were told their premiums would go down, and we have seen chapter and verse--as the gentleman from Oklahoma so forcefully outlined--of the dramatic, drastic, unspeakable increase in premiums that Americans have undergone. They were told they would have choice when it came to health insurance, and they have not had that choice. They have lost their freedom to make their own healthcare decisions, and that has been sacrificed in favor of a big government approach. So people are hurting, as has been explained on the floor tonight.

Families in my State who do not have employer-based health insurance are paying nearly $3,000 more per year in premiums than they did 4 years ago. In my State, it is a 116-percent increase in premiums under the Affordable Care Act over this short period of time. I guess we should be thankful we are not the 201-percent increase in premiums that our neighbors from Oklahoma have, or the 223-percent increase in healthcare premiums that our neighbors across the line in the State of Alabama have. But still, it is pretty bad wherever you go, and they were told and this program was sold on a promise of reducing healthcare premiums.

As has also been pointed out, 6 million independent-minded Americans have just said: I will not purchase this required insurance. I will pay the penalty, instead. The Supreme Court says it is a tax. We know it is a penalty. It comes right out of their pockets. They are doing that many times because they are independent-minded but many times because it is the only thing they can afford.

So Americans are hurting. Americans from Missouri, Oklahoma, and Mississippi are hurting, and they are hurting all across America. My Republican colleagues know this. My Democratic colleagues know this.

They say: Well, the ACA needs adjustment. It needs some help.

But what is their solution? I think we are beginning to know, based on statements made and based on information coming forward, that our Democratic friends really want a single-payer system. That is their solution to the failed ObamaCare system we have now--a British-style, European-style, government-run insurance-for-all program. I don't think we need that in America. I don't think that is what Americans thought they were getting.

My wife and I have never moved our family to Washington, DC. We have kept our home on the same street in Tupelo, MS, the whole time. We raised our kids in Mississippi. When the last bell rings this weekend, I will be on a plane back home to my State, moving around the State, talking to Mississippians, speaking to people who gave me this great opportunity to serve in this great body and this great system of government.

I want to be able to tell them when I go home after this vote that I have taken a big step in keeping the Federal Government out of the business of deciding healthcare for their families. I want to be able to tell them that they are now going to have more options to choose the plan that works for them. I want to tell people back home who put me in office that we put more power in the hands of the States, not unelected Washington, DC, bureaucrats. I want to be able to tell them we passed a bill that, as my friend from Oklahoma says, answers their concerns about preexisting conditions and takes care of those people with low incomes who need assistance in buying insurance. I want to assure the people back in my home State and all across America, as my friend from Oklahoma just did so eloquently, that the Medicaid Program will continue. As a matter of fact, it will continue to grow, but at a rate that is more sustainable, so we can afford it today and so we can afford the Medicaid Program in future generations.

This has taken long hours of give and take. It may take more long hours in debates tonight and in a conference with the House, but we can get there. I see the solution formulating, and I am as optimistic as I have ever been that we will be able to keep this four-election promise we made.

These reforms are now within reach. We should take advantage tonight of this opportunity to deliver on what was promised to the American people, to relieve Americans who are hurting from the current ObamaCare system, and to give them a better opportunity for affordable and accessible healthcare.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dave Zwirblis, Shane Stoughton, and Neal McMillan, congressional fellows in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 115th Congress.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 4:20 p.m. today and that following the recess, Senator Wyden or his designee be recognized for up to 60 minutes.

Mr. President, before beginning my remarks about the requirement for a larger Navy, I do want to extend my deepest condolences to the loved ones of those who lost their lives aboard the USS Fitzgerald recently.

During Saturday morning's early hours, the USS Fitzgerald--a guided-

missile destroyer--collided with a Filipino merchant ship off the coast of Honshu, Japan. The USS Fitzgerald sustained significant damage, including the rapid flooding of three compartment areas, and seven sailors lost their lives. These young Americans were on board because they chose to serve their country, and they are heroes whose names will be added to the list of those who will be forever honored by our country.

Questions remain about the collision, and I am hopeful that they will be answered soon. Administrative and safety investigations into this tragedy are already underway, but we cannot change the horrific turn of events that occurred at 2 a.m. off the coast of Japan.

Our hearts go out to the loved ones who are dealing with the grief this accident has caused. We wish a quick recovery for those who were injured, and our gratitude goes to the many sailors who acted swiftly and resolutely to save lives and prevent further damage aboard.

Does the distinguished majority leader wish me to yield for some business?

I would be delighted.

Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. President, let's talk about the size of our Navy's fleet.

The current fleet has 276 ships, but the Navy's requirement is now for 355 ships--a figure supported by congressionally mandated future fleet architecture studies.

Last week, I spoke on the floor about the national imperative to build a larger Navy. I outlined the critical missions that our Navy performs every day to help secure the country's vital interests. I also described an intense naval competition with our real and potential adversaries. This is a competition America cannot afford to lose.

America needs a bigger Navy. How do we get there? Related to that question is when we get to a 355-ship fleet. According to the Chief of Naval Operations, ADM John Richardson, we should reach our 355-ship objective in the mid-2020s. To do that, we should have started yesterday. Building and sustaining technologically advanced ships is a long-term national project. It cannot happen overnight. It takes years.

As chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, I intend to lay a firm foundation this year to help support a buildup. Based on my subcommittee's work, I am convinced that Congress has a critical role to play in determining how we get to 355. All options should be on the table. Here are four ideas to consider.

No. 1, ramp up hot production lines.

The Navy's accelerated fleet plan states that over the next 7 years, the shipbuilding industrial base can support building more ships than are currently planned. The Navy plans to build 59, but the shipbuilders can actually complete 88. We should do this. Many hot production lines have excess capacity. Congress should authorize the Navy to ``buy in bulk,'' using multiyear and block buy contracts. These contracts would help solidify the skilled workforce, stimulate suppliers, and drive down costs. We can also authorize advance procurement funding to buy long-lead-time pieces and parts.

No. 2, extend the service life of ships in the fleet.

A quarter century ago, the Navy had 450 ships and deployments that averaged 167 days. Now the average deployment exceeds 200 days. In other words, the Navy is smaller, but the tempo of its operations has accelerated. An extra month of deployment puts additional wear and tear on ships, and this can force early retirement and ultimately squander taxpayer dollars.

Better maintenance can extend ships' service lives, delay retirement, and help us reach the 355-ship goal faster. I applaud the President's budget request for fully funding ship depot maintenance. We must build new ships and maintain the current fleet better.

In a recent speech to the Naval War College, the CNO, Admiral Richardson, noted that extending the lives of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers could help the Navy reach the 355-ship objective 10 to 15 years earlier. The commander of Navy Sea Systems Command, VADM Thomas Moore, agreed with the CNO in a recent speech in which he stated that proper maintenance would extend service lives and help grow the fleet more rapidly.

No. 3, reactivate ships in the Ready Reserve fleet.

During the Reagan buildup, the Navy brought ships out of mothballs, including battleships with massive guns, to help grow the fleet size. The Navy should look at the Reserve fleet ship by ship to determine if any can be restored to operational status.

In his Naval War College speech, the CNO revealed that he is considering bringing some retired Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates out of mothballs. Vice Admiral Moore also suggested examining the merits of returning some logistics ships to the force.

Reactivating retired ships does not simply mean bringing back less capable ships. Jerry Hendrix and Robert C. O'Brien wrote in POLITICO in April that reactivated ships could be outfitted with modern missile systems and potentially cutting-edge electromagnetic railguns and directed energy weapons. In other words, reactivated ships could perform completely different and relevant missions at a fraction of the cost of new construction.

No. 4, develop and deploy unmanned maritime systems.

The fleet of the future will include new types of ships. Again, according to the CNO, ``There is no question that unmanned systems must also be an integral part of the future fleet.'' Unmanned undersea and surface ships can offer significant advantages, such as the ability to conduct persistent operations. We have seen drones revolutionize combat from the skies. The same is possible on the seas.

I believe the Navy needs a dedicated range to test unmanned systems with other manned and unmanned platforms, while also training new operators and maintainers. I applaud the Navy for including substantial R&D funding for unmanned underwater vehicles, UUVs, in its unfunded priorities list. I am hopeful that Congress will provide the resources that are necessary to rapidly develop and deploy new unmanned systems.

To conclude, we should be considering all options for building up our naval capacity. I do not dismiss the fact that these options cost money and some are controversial, but they deserve to be explored. It would be irresponsible for Congress not to do the work now to ensure that the Navy of the future has what it needs to respond to challenges and fulfill its missions. That means 355 ships, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to set this imperative national project into motion.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.