Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to continue my discussion about the case for a bigger Navy, a bigger fleet, and to endorse the requirement of the experts in the Department of Defense that we move to a 355-ship Navy.

When a crisis strikes around the world, the President asks his national security team: Where are the carriers? Where are the aircraft carriers?

Each of our carriers is a 100,000-ton giant, accompanied by an entire carrier group that consists of mighty warships and aircraft. The carrier, itself, represents 4.5 acres of sovereign U.S. territory.

In early January of this year--and Senators do not know this--a strange and profoundly disturbing thing happened. The answer to the Commander in Chief's question, had it been asked at that point--where are the carriers?--would have been that none of them had been deployed--not a single one. For the first time since World War II, the United States had no carriers deployed anywhere--not in the Persian Gulf, not in the Mediterranean, not in the Western Pacific.

There is a gap in our global carrier presence, and there is a gap in our fleet. This comes from years of complacency. Also, it comes from a different set of facts that we are faced with and a different set of challenges that we are faced with in our quest to make our presence known and to protect our national security interests on the open seas. We have ignored the great naval competition that is taking place elsewhere--the fact that it is accelerating. We have taken our Navy and our sailors and marines for granted.

Simply put, the Navy we have today is too small. We cannot accomplish the critical missions that we have by preserving the status quo. Right now, we have 277 ships, and we need to get to 355 ships. That was reiterated today by the Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of the Navy in a hearing before the full Armed Services Committee.

I will reiterate to my colleagues and to the American people what the Navy does for America and why the current fleet is too small to meet current and emerging challenges.

First, the global presence of the Navy ship matters to American prosperity--to the quality of life of Americans. Ninety percent of global trade is seaborne. Maritime traffic has increased by 400 percent over the past quarter century. In addition to commerce, nearly all intercontinental telecommunications transit via a web of undersea cables. Undersea cables are responsible for nearly all of our intercontinental telecommunications.

Second, a strong Navy deters aggressive behavior and reassures our allies as the Nation's first-on-the-scene force. A strong Navy can help keep bad situations from spiraling out of control and getting worse. For example, the President recently dispatched multiple carrier strike groups to the Sea of Japan following North Korea's missile tests. The President asked where the carriers were, and he dispatched them to a place of crisis. A mix of ships gives our Commander in Chief a range of military options, and their deployments to areas of instability can send a message of resolve to our friends and foes alike.

Third, if deterrence fails, our naval forces can provide a decisive response to aggression. Surface ships, submarines, and the aircraft on the carriers can launch missile strikes, control air and sea traffic, and intercept missile threats. The recent U.S. action in Syria is a good example, as the Presiding Officer knows. In using destroyers in the Mediterranean, the Commander in Chief delivered precision strikes against Syrian airfields. He enforced the redline against outlawed chemical weapons, and President Assad has not crossed that redline again.

Accomplishing these missions as the Nation's sentinel and first responder requires a big Navy. Admiral John Richardson, the Chief of Naval Operations, put it best in ``The Future Navy'' white paper that was released last month. He said:

Numbers matter. The number of ships in the Navy's fleet

determines where we can be, and being there is a key to naval

power.

Again, the current fleet of about 277 ships is way too small. It is important to remember that not all ships are deployed or deployable. In fact, only about 100 ships out of the 277 are currently deployed. The other two-thirds are undergoing heavy maintenance, routine sustainment, or are training to deploy. The Navy recently validated its requirement for 355 ships--a 47-ship increase over the previous requirement.

The lack of ships has created coverage gaps all over the world. I will give two examples.

First, the commander of Pacific Command, ADM Harry Harris, recently told Congress he has only half the submarines he needs. Admiral Harris is responsible for deterring China and North Korea, but he is missing half of the submarines he needs. Closer to home, the commander of Southern Command, ADM Kurt Tidd, has zero Navy ships permanently assigned to his area of operations. These are just two of the many alarming instances where the lack of ships is having major consequences.

While we watch our edge erode, America's real and potential adversaries are building the size and capability of their fleets. They are on the field competing while, in America, many of our players are still in the locker room.

China is building a modern navy capable of projecting global power. China is modernizing every type of ship and submarine in its fleet. China commissioned 18 ships last year. In April, China launched its first domestically built carrier and plans to build at least six more carriers. By 2030, China will have more than twice as many attack submarines and four times as many small surface ships as the United States. Beijing is developing its first overseas naval base in the Horn of Africa. China's naval buildup may attempt to push the United States first out of the Western Pacific, away from critical trade chokepoints and our allies in South Korea and Japan.

I would call the attention of Members to the poster that I have, and I hope it is printed large enough for my colleagues to see. In terms of five types of ships, it compares where we were in 2000, where we are today, and where we are projected to be if current trends continue.

For example, on the farthest column shown on the chart, in attack submarines--and the black portion of each circle represents China's capability, and the blue represents our capability in the United States of America. In 2000, it was 64 to 55 in favor of the Chinese. In 2016, as we can see, 56 to 57. But under current projections, by the year 2030, when it comes to attack submarines, the Chinese will have 87 and the United States will have only 42--a disturbing trend which the Navy would like to reverse if we have the ability and the wisdom to give them the requirement they have said they need.

With regard to ballistic missile submarines, in 2000, quite a mismatch--only 1 for China as compared to 18 for the United States; then, only last year, 4 for China and 14 for the U.S. Navy; and then projected for 2030--and really that is in only 13 short years, which is hard to believe--there will be more Chinese ballistic missile submarines than American ballistic missile submarines unless we take the Navy's requirement to heart and take action beginning this year to rectify that situation.

With regard to small surface ships, as we can see, there was a 79-to- 62 advantage in sheer numbers in 2000 and a 103-to-23 advantage of the Chinese in 2016. In 2030, there will still be a mismatch, in terms of numbers, of 123 small surface ships compared to only 40 for the United States of America.

With large surface ships, it was 20 to 79, then 19 to 84, and by the year 2030, as we can see, the Chinese are projected to have 34 large surface ships.

With regard to aircraft carriers, as I pointed out, they were not in that game at all in 2000. They delivered their first last year, and they are projected to go to four by the year 2013.

It all adds up to 260--a 260-ship fleet for China and only 199 for the United States unless we act, and act responsibly, in response to what the Navy and the Marine Corps and the best military minds in the Pentagon are telling us, and I hope we will do that.

An increasingly aggressive Russia is also modernizing. The Kremlin is pouring money into new attack and nuclear ballistic missile submarines. Russian submarine patrols have doubled, and those patrols are stretching closer to the U.S. homeland. The Russian Navy's operating areas have expanded to include regular operations in the Baltic, Black, Mediterranean, and Caspian Seas. Russia is also exploiting new opportunities in the Arctic by building naval bases in the High North.

So both China and Russia are investing heavily in their fleets and in new ballistic and cruise missiles that can target U.S. naval forces.

And, of course, we need to turn to the subject matter of North Korea. Kim Jong Un will stop at nothing to develop a nuclear weapon that can strike our allies and that can strike deployed U.S. forces and eventually our homeland. A nuclear ballistic submarine would essentially make North Korea impervious to threats of preemption. North Korea is building fortified submarine bunkers and began testing submarine-launched ballistic missiles within the last year.

Iran is another rogue state developing a massive fleet of fast attack boats and mini-submarines to deny the free passage of ships through the vital Strait of Hormuz.

Naval competition is a fact. China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have clearly been building up the size and the sophistication of their fleets. The Chief of Naval Operations has a word to describe the pace of competition, and that word is ``exponential.'' The CNO puts it this way:

Time is an unforgiving characteristic of the maritime

[environment]. Things are moving faster, including our

competitors.

So let's start competing again. Building a larger fleet is a national project. It will require sustained commitment by the President, the Congress, and the Department of Defense. As chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, I intend to begin laying a firm foundation this year for a significant buildup in the future, and I hope my colleagues will join me.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the vote on the motion to proceed to S. 722, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for debate only, with Senator Wicker recognized for 12 minutes, to be followed by Senator Merkley for 12 minutes; and that following those remarks, the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

Mr. President, as chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, I rise this afternoon to direct the attention of this body to an important national security issue: building and sustaining a larger Navy.

President Trump wants a 350-ship Navy, which aligns with the Navy's requirement for 355 ships. Right now we have only 275 ships in the battle fleet. Increasing the size of the Navy by 80 ships, even as older ships retire each year, is a test of national will. It will not happen overnight. However, Congress has the responsibility to lay a firm foundation this year to prepare for a deliberate and responsible buildup in the future. A healthy shipbuilding industrial base is necessary to succeed.

Today, I will offer some general comments about the state of shipbuilding. Then I will focus on the submarine industrial base, in particular, because of its unique challenges. Finally, I will make suggestions on how Congress can support the industrial base in general and the submarine yards specifically.

Last month, my subcommittee convened two hearings on this matter. The first was with naval officials. This took place in a classified setting because of their expertise and because of sensitive information. The other hearing was with the country's two top shipbuilders--Huntington Ingalls and General Dynamics--as well as the Shipbuilders Council of America, which is the trade association for suppliers. We discussed the industrial base as it exists today and the challenges associated with building up the fleet.

Based on my subcommittee's work, here are four general impressions of the state of shipbuilding.

No. 1, the yards are turning out most classes of ships on time and on budget. Ingalls Shipbuilding just delivered the newest big-deck amphibious ship--the LHA--13 weeks early. Electric Boat and Newport News continue to deliver Virginia-class attack submarines, or SSNs. Construction time for attack submarines has declined by 1\1/2\ years-- from 84 months to 66 months. There are a few notable exceptions, but, by and large, industry is delivering for the warfighter and for the taxpayer.

No. 2, most yards have excess capacity to ramp up shipbuilding. This is very good news for national security. The Navy's accelerated fleet plan concluded that the industrial base can build an additional 29 ships--above projections--over the next 7 years. The glaring exceptions are the submarine yards, which will struggle to meet planned demand as the new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine production starts. In terms of capacity, our submarine yards have a ways to go.

No. 3, two decades of low-rate shipbuilding have significantly reduced the supplier base. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that ships cost more today than they did during the Reagan buildup, even when adjusting for inflation. Twenty years ago, about 17,000 suppliers served the submarine business. Now only about 3,000 first- tier suppliers are left. Let me repeat this. We used to have 17,000 suppliers. Now we have 3,000. These 3,000 suppliers include large corporations, such as Northrop Grumman and L3, which have tens of thousands of employees. These 3,000 suppliers also include mom-and-pop small businesses with just a few employees. Whether they deal with large corporations or small businesses, the shipyards increasingly buy from sole-source suppliers. In fact, Newport News spends about 65 percent of its budget in buying pieces and parts from single and sole- source suppliers. General Dynamics faces a very similar situation. I have little doubt that this dramatic erosion in the supplier base explains why ships cost more today.

No. 4, in terms of my general observations, Congress has a critical role to play in supporting a buildup through advance procurement funding, through multiyear procurement authority, and through block buys. These tools can stimulate the supplier base, stabilize the workforce, and achieve significant savings through producing economies of scale. In addition, incremental funding authority is a tool that Congress can authorize to smooth out peaks and valleys in appropriations. This makes it easier to buy more ships in 1 year without busting the budget.

To sum it up, most yards are performing well and have the capacity to ramp up. The submarine yards are doing exceptional work but will struggle because of capacity. All shipbuilders face a diminished supplier base, which undermines competition, and Congress can help improve the supplier situation and stabilize the skilled workforce through using acquisition authorities.

That is a snapshot of the overall shipbuilding industrial base. Now let's turn to submarines specifically. Let's begin with the Navy's requirements.

In 2016, the Navy set a new requirement. The total requirement for ships is 355. That includes an increase of 47 ships from the previous level. For the Navy's submarine fleet, the new plan calls for 66 attack submarines and 12 ballistic missile submarines. We currently have 52 attack submarines--a number that will eventually decline to 41 over the next decade unless we do something about it. I propose we do something about it. We currently have 14 ballistic missile submarines as part of our nuclear deterrent. Beginning in 2021, 12 of these will be replaced by the new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines.

To reiterate, we need 355 ships. That includes 66 attack submarines and 12 ballistic missile submarines. How does the President's budget request match up? The fiscal year 2018 request includes nine ships and prioritizes readiness more so than modernization. Congress needs to work with the President to reach his goal and to reach the requirement of 350 to 355 ships. I look forward to working with the administration on these budget numbers in order to make them work and to help the President achieve his goal.

Now let's talk about submarines. The budget request fully funds R&D for Columbia-class SSBNs to keep the program on track. The budget also funds the procurement of two Virginia-class submarines. We have followed this policy for years.

The Navy will struggle to ramp up submarine production because of the industrial base for submarines and how it will be stretched to capacity. The CBO tells us that reaching 355 ships in 15 years is not possible because we lack submarine production capacity. Electric Boat and Newport News are investing billions to recapitalize facilities, workforce, and suppliers, but that recapitalization effort is aimed at meeting current projected demand.

Arresting the decline in attack submarines, while maintaining the schedule for the Columbia-class SSBN, will take a significant recapitalization effort. We have done it before, and we can do it again. From the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, industry steadily delivered three attack submarines per year and added a fourth SSBN on time and on budget. There is no reason we cannot do this again. We must take decisive action now to make this a reality. There are four ways in which Congress can help.

No. 1, repeal the defense budget caps. Sufficient and stable funding is the starting point for expanding submarine and shipbuilding capacity. The Budget Control Act-mandated budget caps have damaged military readiness and choked off modernization. While intended as a way to incentivize us to reform mandatory programs, the BCA defense caps have proved to be a self-inflicted wound. We cannot solve our spending and debt problem on the backs of our warfighters and industrial base, much less on the backs of the security of Americans. Congress needs to end the defense budget caps immediately.

No. 2, we need to accelerate and fully fund advance procurement. This will help stimulate and encourage new entrants into the supplier base. We need more competition. We need more suppliers. Driving down the cost per ship will free up resources to buy more ships.

No. 3, we need to incentivize capital investment. Congress should work with industry to identify responsible and cost-effective ways to incentivize investments in facilities and capital equipment.

No. 4, we need to target some appropriations to fund process improvements. I mentioned earlier that Newport News and Electric Boat have shaved a year and a half off Virginia production through more efficient manufacturing. We need more of this sort of thing.

Shipbuilding is a team effort, and these are four ways in which Congress can help to constructively participate in this national project.

The requirement for a bigger Navy is clear. The Navy needs our help to fulfill its mission. Numbers matter when it comes to projecting naval power in this day and age. The President and the Navy agree that we must build a bigger Navy.

To summarize, the shipbuilding industrial base is up to the task. Submarine production will be the most challenging part of this. There is limited capacity for submarine yards, and we need to do something about that, but Congress can take a number of steps now. We must start to build a foundation this year. I am committed--and I hope the entire Congress is committed--to setting this firm foundation, and I certainly intend to use my

chairmanship on Seapower for this goal.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. President, I rise today to point out that the Federal Communications Commission is voting today, perhaps this morning, to begin the process to roll back a regulatory framework that should never have been imposed on broadband service providers in the first place. Like many of my colleagues, I am glad the FCC is working to restore the ``light touch'' regulatory framework that has allowed the internet to thrive since its creation.

This action sets the stage for Congress to then put a legislative solution in place that strikes the right balance between providing regulatory oversight on the one hand and giving the broadband industry the flexibility it needs to innovate and expand on the other hand.

We should not rely on a classification that was devised during the depression era. There should be 21st-century rules for 21st-century technology. As chairman of the Senate subcommittee that oversees internet issues, I look forward to the task ahead. Keeping the internet free and open is a goal shared by most of us and by many of my friends on the other side of the aisle. A bipartisan solution can help provide long-term certainty for both consumers and broadband providers.

This certainty will be essential to our efforts to close the digital divide and remove barriers to internet connectivity that exist in Mississippi and around the United States. The online experience we enjoy today and the revolutionary advances of the internet over the past quarter century did not happen because of the heavy hand of the Federal Government.

These advances happened because the Federal Government stayed out of the way, supporting a ``light touch'' regulatory framework where innovation, competition, and investment could truly survive and thrive.

This was the framework that existed under both Republican and Democratic administrations until 2015, when politics got in the way. With a party-line vote, the FCC that year decided to adopt a utility- style framework, as I said, resulting from legislation devised during the depression. It classified broadband service as a common carrier under title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

A utility-style framework for telephones may have worked during the Bell telephone monopoly of the depression era, but that does not mean it is a right fit now. Nor does it mean we should adopt a completely hands off regulatory approach, which I would also oppose. The goal of net neutrality, which is designed to prevent internet providers from prioritizing some legal content over others has not gone away. But we know that handing over broad control of the internet to Washington is also not the answer.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has outlined some of the reasons for this, including the impact of title II regulations on big and small internet service providers. If we do not give providers the confidence to invest in better services and better infrastructure, it could limit consumers' options and services. This could also affect our efforts to close the digital divide, to bring the digital world to our rural communities in Alabama and Mississippi. Underserved communities could remain underserved.

Without broadband access, these communities could lose out on critical jobs, economic development, and many other opportunities borne out of the thriving internet economy.

At the end of the day, we need to be asking: What do Americans want and what do Americans need? They need broadband that is accessible, affordable, fast, and reliable. They want to be able to choose the services and content that best meets their needs.

These are the priorities that need to be kept in mind as the FCC works today and as lawmakers work to strike a balance between regulatory oversight and free market productivity.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I wish to express my concerns about the outcome of the April 16 constitutional referendum in Turkey, when more than 50 million Turkish citizens voted on constitutional amendments to convert Turkey's parliamentary government into a Presidential system.

Turkey is a longstanding friend of the United States and a NATO ally.

Our bilateral partnership dates back to the Cold War when Turkey served as an important bulwark against the creeping influence of the Soviet Union. Time has not diminished Turkey's geostrategic importance. Today Ankara finds itself at the intersection of several critical challenges: the instability in Syria and Iraq, the threat of ISIS and other extremist groups, and the refugee crisis spawned by this regional upheaval.

The United States relies on Turkey and other regional partners to help coordinate and strengthen our collective response. I was deeply troubled when renegade military units attempted to overthrow Turkey's democratically elected government last July. Turkey's strength is rooted in the democratic legitimacy of its government--a pillar of stability targeted by the reckless and criminal coup attempt.

As chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, or U.S. Helsinki Commission, I take very seriously the political commitments made by the 57 participating states of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE. These commitments, held by both the United States and Turkey, represent the foundation of security and cooperation in the OSCE region. They include an indispensable focus on human rights, rule of law, and democratic institutions.

In the OSCE's founding document, the Helsinki Final Act, participating states affirm ``the universal significance of human rights and fundamental freedoms'' and consider respect for these to be an ``essential factor'' for international peace and security. This vision is consistent with long-established U.S. foreign policy promoting human rights and democracy as cornerstones of a safer, more stable international order.

With these principles in mind, the United States must pay urgent attention to the current situation in Turkey and the danger it poses to Turkish and regional stability. Eroding respect for fundamental freedoms, rule of law, and democratic institutions in Turkey has proceeded at an alarming pace. The government's planned ``executive presidency'' will further decrease government accountability.

Since the attempted coup more than 9 months ago, Turkey has operated under a state of emergency that gives the government sweeping authority to curtail rights and silence opponents. Certain extraordinary measures may have been justified in the immediate aftermath to restore order, investigate events, and bring perpetrators to justice, but the government's actions have stretched far beyond these legitimate aims. The ongoing purge has touched every institution of government, sector of society, corner of the country, and shade of opposition--military or civilian, Turk or Kurd, religious or secular, nationalist or leftist, political or nonpolitical.

An atmosphere of fear and uncertainty has settled over Turkish society as more than 100,000 people have been detained or arrested. Tens of thousands have been fired from their jobs, had their professional licenses revoked, and had their names released on public lists without any recognizable due process. The government removed and replaced thousands of judges and prosecutors within hours of the coup's defeat, compromising the independence of the judiciary at a moment when an impartial justice system had become more important than ever.

The government has also closed more than 150 media outlets. Upwards of 80 journalists are behind bars. The offices of the country's oldest newspaper were raided, and the paper's editor-in-chief and other staff were arrested. The media environment was already under extraordinary pressure before the coup. Last spring, the government seized control of the country's highest circulation paper. Self-censorship is now widely practiced to avoid provoking the government's ire.

Additionally, state of emergency decrees have given regional governors the ability to curtail freedom of assembly rights, harming the ability of civil society organizations to organize rallies concerning the referendum. Since July, the government has detained more than a dozen opposition parliamentarians. Many more continue to face criminal charges for political statements they made before the coup attempt.

It is difficult to overstate the chilling effect these measures have had on political debate in Turkey; yet these are the circumstances under which Turks voted on April 16. These major constitutional changes passed with a slim majority of 51 percent. The OSCE's international observation mission stated in its preliminary conclusions that the vote ``took place on an unlevel playing field'' and that ``fundamental freedoms essential to a genuinely democratic process were curtailed.''

Under the revised constitution, the once largely ceremonial position of President will convert into an ``executive presidency'' and the position of Prime Minister will be abolished. The President will be elected along with the national assembly every 5 years and has the ability to dissolve the assembly and call new elections at will. The President will also appoint a larger proportion--nearly half--of the country's supreme judicial council. In a report on these new constitutional provisions, the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe concluded that the amendments are a ``step backwards'' and pose ``dangers of degeneration . . . towards an authoritarian and personal regime.''

Turkey is undergoing a disturbing transformation, and I am concerned these changes could undermine the strength of our partnership. President Erdogan's government has dramatically repressed dissent, purged opponents from every sector of government and society, and is now poised to consolidate power further under his self-described ``executive presidency.''

In the short term, the Turkish Government should act swiftly and transparently to investigate credible claims of voting irregularities in the referendum, as well as the legality of a surprise electoral board decision to admit an unknown number of ballots that should be deemed invalid under existing rules. Public trust in the outcome of such a consequential vote is of utmost importance. Sadly, until now, the government has responded to these challenges with dismissiveness and suppression. In the past week, dozens of activists have been detained for participating in protests against the election results.

Furthermore, the government should lift the state of emergency, stop all forms of repression against the free press, release all imprisoned journalists and political activists, and urgently restore public confidence in the judiciary. Only then can it credibly and independently adjudicate the tens of thousands of cases caught up in the government's months-long dragnet operations.

A country where disagreements are suppressed rather than debated is less secure. A country where institutions are subordinated to personalities is less stable. A country where criticism is conflated with sedition is less democratic. Unless President Erdogan moves urgently to reverse these trends, I fear our partnership will inevitably become more transactional and less strategic. It will become more difficult to justify long-term investment in our relationship with Turkey if the future of the country becomes synonymous with the fortunes of one party or one individual.

The United States and Turkey need a solid foundation for enduring cooperation to tackle regional instability, terrorism, migration, and other challenges. The future of this partnership is difficult to imagine in the midst of a prolonged state of emergency, wide-scale purges, and weakened democratic institutions.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about a troubling issue for our Navy, our national defense, and a problem that should be of concern to Members of this body. Our Navy pilot training installations, including Naval Air Station Meridian in my home State of Mississippi, produce some of the finest pilots on the planet. They trained on the T-45 Goshawk.

On Friday, March 31, a significant number of T-45 instructor pilots at NAS Meridian, NAS Kingsville in Texas, and NAS Pensacola in Florida decided not to fly because of safety concerns. As you can imagine, this was an almost unprecedented act and brought considerable attention to a problem plaguing the Navy's tactical fighter community: a dramatic and sustained increase in so-called physiological episodes, or PE events, across the FA-18 Hornet, the EA-18 Growler, and the training jet T-45 Goshawk fleets.

Physiological episodes occur when air crew experience diminished inflight performance related to loss or contamination of oxygen, depressurization in the cockpit, or other factors. There are some technical terms I am going to mention to my colleagues. Hypoxic hypoxia occurs when pilots are getting insufficient oxygen. A more serious phenomenon called histotoxic hypoxia occurs when they are breathing contaminated oxygen, and of course depressurization occurs when the cabin pressure drops.

I have been assured that solving this physiological episode problem is now naval aviation's No. 1 one safety priority. As chairman of the Armed Services Committee's Seapower Subcommittee, I intend to continue the committee's oversight on this issue and, if necessary, include provisions in the upcoming Defense authorization bill to help. I applaud the work of our full committee chairman, Senator McCain, on his efforts so far. In fact, Senator McCain knows NAS Meridian very well, having served there as an instructor pilot. The airfield named ``McCain Field'' is in honor of Senator McCain's grandfather, ADM John McCain.

The Navy has told Congress and the American people repeatedly that its effort to mitigate and solve the problems of these PE events, including histotoxic hypoxia, are ``resource unconstrained.'' In other words, the Navy has told us that money is no object in solving this problem, time is no object, and personnel is no object. As chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, I intend to put that claim to test.

I would like to update my colleagues on the situation--my factfinding trip to Meridian, the state of play, and the plan going forward.

Beginning around 2010, a significant increase in reported PE events occurred, which led to the establishment of a Physiological Episode Team to identify root causes, develop mitigation efforts and solutions. This team mainly addressed the less serious problem of hypoxic hypoxia, but in recent months, there has been an alarming uptick in histotoxic hypoxia, a relatively new phenomenon involving contaminated oxygen in the cockpit. This has presented new challenges. The Navy has not identified a root cause for either type of hypoxia but has taken steps to mitigate effects through new maintenance rules, equipment changes and redesigns, and by adding data collection tools. However, there is currently not adequate mitigation for the more serious type of hypoxia, which has led to this halt in training.

As a search for the root causes continues, data collection is worth stressing. These aircraft do not have automatic sensors. In effect, the pilot is the sensor. Maximizing data collection on every training flight is critical. The collection of more data can help in the analytical effort, which will get us closer to finding the root cause. After the instructor pilots' boycott--which I stress they had every right to do--the Navy issued a safety standdown and stopped all training flights for a period of days. This tactical pause allowed the Navy to send senior leadership to visit the training installations and hear directly from the instructor pilots and students. I respect the considered decisions of both of these groups, the instructor pilots who continued to fly and the ones who engaged in the boycott.

After meeting with Pentagon experts on this matter, I then made a factfinding trip to NAS Meridian on April 8. I met with VADM Mike Shoemaker, the commander of Naval Air Forces. Admiral Shoemaker is the air boss who commands operational naval aviation forces. I also met with RADM Dell Bull, who is the chief of Naval Air Training, and I met with NAS Meridian's excellent installation leadership. Perhaps most important, I convened two focus groups: one group of instructor pilots who chose to fly and another group who chose not to fly. Both groups agree that a serious communication problem existed. The meetings with pilots demonstrated that some in the Navy hierarchy did not fully appreciate that this histotoxic hypoxia, contaminated oxygen, was a new and different phenomenon. In addition, the efforts of the Navy leadership were not being communicated effectively to the instructors and the students. In other words, the message was not getting down to the flight line, and the people on the flight line did not feel the message was getting back up to the hierarchy. Many felt their concerns were being ignored. The lack of action on the relatively new emergence of histotoxic hypoxia in the Goshawk only exacerbated the feeling among some that the Navy's actions were not matching its rhetoric.

Following my visit on April 8, the Navy took the important step of establishing a Physiological Episode Team for the T-45 alone. This is an important action which should bring more focused attention to the Goshawk community. The Navy ended the safety standdown on April 14 and resumed flying the next week under restricted conditions, such as flying at lower maximum altitudes and pulling fewer Gs. Of course, this is not the optimal way of training.

Then, following a subsequent PE incident in Kingsville and feedback from instructor pilots on the mitigation plan, the Navy has chosen to restrict training flights even further. This is a problem. The Navy tells us the current practice would allow a student to complete only about 20 to 25 percent of the curriculum. That is the status today. The Navy is already short on pilots, and continuing the status quo could further constrict the pilot production pipeline.

Where do we go from here? The Navy has brought three T-45s that have experienced physiological episodes to

Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD, for extensive engineering investigation and analysis. They are taking the airplanes apart at Pax River. I applaud this action. Initial results of the testing should be available next week with more information to follow as the data is processed. At the same time, engineers have teamed up with pilots from both the test community and the training command, including at least one Meridian instructor pilot. They are investigating possible mitigations, such as alterations to pilot masks. This will allow our instructors and student pilots to get back to what they want to do most; that is, to fly and train new pilots to fly.

In addition, on April 21, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Moran, directed Admiral Scott Swift, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, to lead a month-long review of the facts, circumstances, and processes surrounding the recent episodes and how the Navy has addressed them. The Swift review will evaluate the Navy's organizational structures and processes and make recommendations for additional action.

These efforts are desperately needed. Still, we have no real diagnosis. Still, we have no real solution in the works. Senators should know this: As of 3 weeks ago, problems with histotoxic hypoxia at our naval training bases have earned the full attention of the top leadership in the Navy. These problems also have the full attention and oversight of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Seapower Subcommittee.

I look forward to continued interaction with the Navy leadership on this very important issue.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was saddened to learn that an American member of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine was killed this past weekend by a landmine. Joseph Stone was carrying out his duties in territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists. Two other members of the team--one from the Czech Republic and another from Germany--were injured.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe controls these monitoring teams. They are comprised of unarmed civilians. The mission has been in the region since 2014, when, unfortunately, Russian-backed troops invaded Crimea. Had Russia lived up to the Minsk agreements and ceased supporting, directing, funding, and fueling separatists in this region, there would have been no need for the mission to continue.

Sadly, that is not the case. This particular special monitoring mission currently fields roughly 700 monitors, with 600 of them in Donetsk and Luhansk.

Those who are part of this mission are unarmed civilians. They serve as the eyes and ears for the world in the conflict zone. They report on the near-constant violations of the cease-fire, as well as reporting on humanitarian needs of the population.

They play an essential role in the understanding of the situation on the ground, often under extremely difficult circumstances and, certainly, as we have seen with Joseph Stone, dangerous circumstances. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I often hear from our top military leaders about the importance of the OSCE and the work being done by the special monitoring missions.

In late March, for example, during a hearing of the Armed Services Committee, GEN Curtis M. Scaparrotti, commander of the U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, called attention to the good work of OSCE in the region and the work of the monitoring missions. He confirmed in his testimony that ``Russia is directing combined Russian-separatist forces to target civilian infrastructure and threaten and intimidate OSCE monitors in order to turn up the pressure on Ukraine.'' He also said, ``Russian-led separatist forces continue to commit the majority of ceasefire violations despite attempts by the OSCE to broker a lasting ceasefire along the Line of Contact.''

The tragic death of American Joseph Stone underscores the need for the OSCE monitors to have unfettered access across the front lines and across the border regions controlled by the separatists. This unfortunate tragedy is a result of this access not being granted.

I commend the Austrian Foreign Minister, who serves as OSCE chair-in- office, for calling attention to this tragedy and calling for an immediate investigation into these events. Those who are responsible for the death of Joseph Stone and the injury of the two other monitors should be held accountable.

Joseph Stone died serving his country by serving as a part of this international effort, and I extend my condolences this evening to his family and friends.

I once again call on the Russian leadership to put an end to the cycle of violence and to live up to its OSCE commitments. As chairman of the Helsinki Commission, the U.S. part of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I think it is important for Members of the Senate and for Americans to understand the important role that Americans are playing in this effort.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for Judge Neil Gorsuch, to say that I will proudly vote in favor of his confirmation tomorrow, and to express my confidence that history will judge this nominee to be an outstanding Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I hope he serves a long and distinguished career and believe he will. I think Justice Neil Gorsuch will turn out to be a credit to the Supreme Court, to the President who nominated him, and to the Senate that will confirm him tomorrow.

It is unfortunate that we have had quite a bit of discussion about procedure and the process that has gotten us to this vote, which will take place tomorrow afternoon.

I had a conversation with one of my Democratic colleagues yesterday afternoon as we were leaving the Capitol Building. This is a person with whom I have worked on issues and for whom I have great regard. I asked him how he was doing, and he said: Well, OK. I am just getting ready for the United States Senate to be forever changed.

I paused for a moment, and I said: How can it be that two reasonably intelligent Senators of good will can look at the same factual situation and see it so differently? I think my colleague did agree that, indeed, the situation we have is what has led us to our proceedings today.

I do believe my colleagues on the other side of the procedural issues today are people of good will who are trying to do the right thing by their country on this issue, just as I have been.

Let's look first of all at the candidate himself, and then I might take a moment or two to talk about what we have already done. That decision has been made. Let's talk about Neil Gorsuch, about this outstanding future Supreme Court Justice who I believe will be sworn in tomorrow or the next day.

Is Neil Gorsuch qualified? Really, can anyone contest that he is highly qualified? He is perhaps one of the most qualified people ever to have been nominated by a President for the High Court. He has degrees from Columbia, Harvard Law, and Oxford University. He has received the American Bar Association's highest rating, the gold standard that we look at when it comes to judging nominees for the Federal bench up to and including the High Court. He served for 10 years with distinction on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Clearly, he has got the qualifications, and clearly, he is among that group of qualified individuals that the President promised to look at back during the campaign and promised to send that type of individual over to the Supreme Court. I really don't think there is much that can be said to contradict the fact that Neil Gorsuch is qualified and highly qualified.

So now let's ask if Neil Gorsuch is somehow out of the broad judicial mainstream. Again, I think it is clear that, based on his history, based on his testimony, and based on his rulings up until now, he is part of the broad judicial mainstream that will put him in good company on the Supreme Court and makes him a worthy successor to Justice Scalia.

First of all, he has earned the praise of both conservatives and liberals. He has even won the endorsement of President Obama's former Acting Solicitor General, who wrote in the New York Times, ``If the Senate is to confirm anyone, Judge Gorsuch who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver should be at the top of the list.'' So thank you to the

former Acting Solicitor General for going beyond ideology and political philosophy and saying a true statement that Judge Gorsuch is outstanding and should be at the top of the list.

Editorial boards across the country have touted Judge Gorsuch's credentials and temperament. The Denver Post, his hometown newspaper, wrote an editorial praising his ability to apply the law fairly and consistently. Of course, there has been newspaper after newspaper from the right and left across this country who come down on this side of the issue saying that Judge Gorsuch should be confirmed.

Let's look also--and this has been pointed out so often that you wonder if you should say it again, but Judge Gorsuch on the Tenth Circuit has participated in 2,700 cases, he has written over 800 opinions, and has been overruled by the Supreme Court one time. Is this a judicial radical? I think not.

I think this is someone who is demonstrated to be in the judicial mainstream--one reversal by the Supreme Court out of 800 written decisions and 2,700 votes cast on panels with the Tenth Circuit. He has almost always been in the majority some 99 percent of the panels he served on, he was in the majority of those opinions, and 97 percent of those decisions were unanimous. This is hardly some radical pick as some might have suggested.

Has the process been unfair? We have heard a lot about this. A lot of my dear friends on the other side of the aisle feel aggrieved for sure. They feel that Judge Garland, the nominee of President Obama in 2016, was treated unfairly. I would simply make this observation, and the American public can decide if this was unfair.

This is a vacancy that came up during a heated, hotly contested Presidential year. There is really no doubt that, under similar circumstances, had the roles been reversed and had a Republican tried to nominate a nominee in the last year of his 8-year term, that a Democrat majority in the Senate would have done exactly as we did.

I am not guessing when I say this because the Democratic leaders of previous years have said as much. No less than Joe Biden--who was a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee and later on became Vice President for 8 years--no less than Joe Biden said exactly the same. It almost became the Biden rule. Republican Presidential nominees taken up during the final year of a term will not be considered by a Democratic Senate. So the shoe was on the other foot, and we acted the same.

So we will leave it up to the American people to decide whether Judge Garland was treated unfairly. I do not believe he was. As a matter of fact, I felt very comfortable during 2016 saying that who fills a Supreme Court seat is so important, such a significant and long-lasting decision, that the American people deserve to be heard on this issue. I felt comfortable making the Presidential election largely about what the Supreme Court would look like over the coming years.

There is no question about it, the American people got to decide in November of 2016 whether they would like a judge in the mold of Justice Scalia whose seat we were trying to fill or would they like a judge in the mold of Judge Garland who President Obama was seeking to put in place. So I make no apology for saying to the American people, You get to decide in this Presidential year what sort of Supreme Court you want. The American people made that decision, and I am comfortable with that.

I was asked today by several members of the press about the change in the rules that I voted for today. It is not a situation that makes me overly joyed. It is not my idea of a good time to overrule a precedent and to substitute another one in its place. You would rather not do that if you are a U.S. Senator; but the fact is that it puts us back into a place that we were for 200 years in this Republic.

From the beginning of this Senate, 1789 through 1889, through 1989, up to and including 2003, there was no filibuster at all on Supreme Court Justices. There was no partisan filibuster at all in Supreme Court Justices, and no judge had ever been denied his position because of a partisan filibuster at any level--Federal judge, circuit level, or Supreme Court.

That changed in 2003, and with the Miguel Estrada nomination, our Democrat friends stopped a qualified judge from going on the Federal appeals court. That was the beginning of an unfortunate 14-year experiment in judicial filibusters. It is not a filibuster that I think--it is not a precedent or experiment that I think this Senate can be very proud of, but it took place over a relatively short period of time over 14 years, and it ends it today.

As of today, the U.S. Senate is back where it was for over 200 years in the history of this Senate and the history of our Republic without the ability to stop a judge on a partisan filibuster. In fact, this fact cannot be contradicted. There has never been in the history of our country, even in this past decade and a half of having the possibilities of a Supreme Court filibuster, there has never been a Supreme Court nominee in the history of our republic stopped by a partisan filibuster.

Today that 225-year or so precedent would have ended had we not acted to change the rules back to where we are back to fundamental principles. I was not willing to see Judge Neil Gorsuch be that first nominee stopped by a partisan filibuster in the history of our country. I was simply not willing to do that.

We now must proceed to the rest of our business. We will confirm Judge Gorsuch tomorrow. I think he will serve well. Then we have work to do. We have other nominees to consider, and then we've got an agenda that we need to tend to for our people.

I am encouraged by the exchange of the first early steps of goodwill after this divisive process. Indeed, there was an article in one of our publications today that talked about a healthy feeling now in both caucuses, that we have got to put this procedural episode behind us, this crisis behind us and legislate.

I am glad to hear that sort of bipartisan talk coming from the other side of the aisle. Another of my friends across the aisle said, ``We're not looking for dilatory procedures,'' he said. ``When there are things where we can work together, we're looking for that.''

I am encouraged--even encouraged that my friend who I was talking to yesterday afternoon will conclude that we have not forever changed the Senate in a negative way, that we are, in fact, back to where we were before 2003 and getting things done.

In the end, this is about an individual who is qualified. It is about a vacancy that needs to be filled. I for one am highly comfortable that the President, in Neil Gorsuch, has put forth an outstanding, eminently qualified judge and that he will serve us well. My vote tomorrow in favor of confirmation will be cast enthusiastically and proudly, and I think that it will stand the test of time.

I thank the Presiding Officer very much, and at this time, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, earlier today, during his opening remarks, the distinguished majority leader paid tribute to my senior Senator, Thad Cochran, upon the occasion of his becoming the 10th longest serving Senator in the history of our Republic.

If you think about this--I just checked with the cloakroom--the Senate first convened in March of 1789 in New York City. In the 228 years of the United States Senate, Thad Cochran, of Mississippi, now becomes the 10th longest serving Senator in history. Quite a milestone.

I was chairing a subcommittee hearing this morning and was not able to be on the floor during the majority leader's remarks, and so I take a moment to now pay tribute to Senator Cochran at this milestone in his career and in the history of the Senate.

Most Senators do not know Senator Cochran and I were born in the same small town. We are both natives of Pontotoc, MS. We are alumni of the same university. We are both Ole Miss Rebels. We also share the same political lineage in Mississippi of being early pioneers in the development of the Republican Party. I was the first Republican Member of the House of Representatives in my congressional district, the First District of Mississippi, back in 1994. Senator Cochran

blazed an even more significant trail by becoming the first popularly elected Republican Senator from Mississippi back in 1978--in over a century. He succeeded former President pro tempore Jim Eastland, of Mississippi.

I have been able to watch him and be somewhat of a teammate over the decades, and I just want to pay tribute to Thad Cochran as being a trailblazer for quite some time. This is a milestone, and it is a testament to the proven record that Senator Cochran has built over 38 years in this Chamber. He served for 6 years in the House prior to that, so he has been around a long time. He has always been a good public servant. He has always been a strong American. He has always been a good member of the troop.

He is chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and a lot of funds are distributed through that committee. He is part of the team, and his committee is part of the team. Again, a lot of our colleagues do not realize this, but we set budget numbers--the House and Senate. We come to an agreement, and we set those spending levels. Then the Appropriations Committee, under the leadership of Thad Cochran, does the hard work of figuring out how to abide by those budget caps, and they do it year in and year out. With leadership like Senator Thad Cochran's, usually, the numbers are crunched, and they make it work on a bipartisan basis. Many of the votes in the Appropriations Committee last year, under the leadership of Chairman Cochran, were unanimous votes or virtually unanimous votes.

At the same time, he has been able to, within the constraints of those budget caps, take care of the needs of our country and certainly the needs of our State of Mississippi at some very dark moments in the history of our State. Hurricane Katrina--the worst natural disaster in recorded history ever to hit the North American Continent--was visited upon our State, and we were certainly fortunate to have the leadership of Senator Thad Cochran, and I was glad to be his partner in that regard. After Deepwater Horizon, the entire gulf coast region--and in fact the entire Nation--benefited from the leadership of Senator Cochran.

He makes us proud, and he has made us proud for years and years now. He was called by someone the ``quiet persuader,'' and that nickname has stuck and has been appropriate for quite some time. Throughout his time in Congress, indeed, Thad Cochran has been the quiet persuader. Not a lot of demagoguery, not a lot of arm-waving, not a lot of rhetoric comes from this desk in front of me--but leadership and resolve and taking care of business on behalf of the United States of America.

Before he was a Congressman, Thad Cochran was a successful young lawyer, and before that, he was a member of the Navy. He served our country well. Before that, he was perhaps the most outstanding law student with perhaps the highest grade point average ever in the history of the ``Ole Miss'' law school. So he has made us proud in so many ways.

Although I was not able to be on the floor at the moment when Senator McConnell made this recognition, I did want to come, now that I have a moment or two, and add my words of encouragement and congratulations to Thad Cochran, but also my words of appreciation on behalf of a grateful State and a grateful Nation for the many ways in which Thad Cochran has made us a better and a stronger country.

Thank you, Madam President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.