Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 148 (Wednesday, September 13, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 148 (Wednesday, September 13, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5245-S5253]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018--MOTION TO
PROCEED

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the

[[Page S5246]]

Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 2810,
which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 175, H.R. 2810, a bill to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such
fiscal year, and for other purposes.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York, with
whom I have had the pleasure and displeasure of working on many
occasions. He is a strong advocate for what he believes in. Yet, over
the years I have worked with him, his word is good, and when it comes
to tough discussion and agreement and when agreement is reached, he
sticks to his word, and that is an important element in our ability to
work together.
I thank the Senator from New York for his efforts in bringing us
together in a bipartisan fashion. I hope that what we will get done in
the next few days is an example of what we can do when working
together, so I thank him for his opening remarks and his advocacy in
our bipartisan work together.
I join my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, the ranking member
of the Armed Services Committee, to speak about the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. I thank the Senator from Rhode
Island for his hard work on the NDAA. I remain appreciative of the
thoughtfulness with which and bipartisan spirit in which he approaches
national security issues. He is a great partner, and this legislation
would not be possible if it were not for his contributions and
leadership.
In June, the Senate Armed Services Committee passed the National
Defense Authorization Act unanimously, by a vote of 27 to 0. During
that process, the committee considered and adopted 277 amendments that
were offered by Republicans and Democrats--some with very spirited
debate and discussion. I thank each of my fellow members of the Armed
Services Committee. A vote of 27 to 0 is something we can be proud of.
I am tremendously proud of the committee's work. The bill, as I
mentioned, passed unanimously this year for the first time in 5 years.
I was especially proud of the way in which my colleagues worked to
overcome differences, of the respect that each member showed for one
another, and of the common commitment to support our servicemembers and
help our military achieve its mission.
Now we are prepared to consider the legislation on the floor under an
open amendment process that will allow all Senators to have their
voices heard. I thank the majority leader, the Senator from Kentucky,
for bringing the NDAA to the Senate floor this week and for doing so,
once again, under regular order. That means that we will have
amendments, that we will have debate, that we will have spirited
discussion, which is what the Senate is supposed to have.
I am guardedly optimistic that at the end of this, we will complete
legislation which will be better for having gone through that process
and for the men and women who are now in harm's way, defending our
Nation.
For 55 consecutive years, Congress has passed this piece of
legislation. That record speaks primarily to the importance of this
legislation to our national security. I know that all of my colleagues
would agree that our men and women in uniform deserve our constant
support and unending thanks for their sacrifice and service. No other
piece of legislation has a long history of broad, bipartisan support.
In today's political climate, the passage of this legislation may be
exactly what we need to remind ourselves of the important work the
American people sent us here to do.
The NDAA is a piece of legislation in which this body and Members on
both sides of the aisle can and should take immense pride. Not only
does this legislation provide our men and women in uniform with the
resources they need and deserve, but it is the product of an open and
bipartisan process that represents the best of the Senate, and it could
not come at a more important time.
The threats to our national security have not been more complex,
severe, or daunting at any time in the past seven decades, and our job
is to ensure that we have a military capable of meeting those threats.
For too long, we have locked ourselves into making strategic decisions
based on budget realities. It is time to start making budget decisions
based on strategic realities.
Just consider the current threats to our national security.
Day after day, test after test, North Korea continues to get ever
closer to developing the capability to strike the U.S. homeland with a
nuclear-armed missile and continues to threaten our allies in the
region.
While we have made some important gains in the fight against ISIS,
the campaign to achieve a lasting defeat of terrorist threats and to
secure our enduring national security interests in Iraq and Syria is
far from over.
Iran continues to destabilize the Middle East and seeks to drive the
United States out of the region.
We have entered a new era of great power competition as Russia and
China contest the rules-based liberal world order that is the
foundation of our security and prosperity.
Every day we learn more about Russia's asymmetric capabilities--from
cyber attacks to disinformation campaigns--even as they modernize their
military, occupy Crimea, destabilize Ukraine, and threaten our NATO
allies.
Meanwhile, China continues to militarize the South China Sea and
modernize its own military at an alarming rate.
We must not forget that we are a Nation at war, with thousands of our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines deployed in harm's way in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the globe.
Yet, as dangerous as these and other foreign threats are, perhaps the
greatest harm to our national security and our military is self-
inflicted. I repeat: self-inflicted. It is the accumulation of years of
uncertain, untimely, and inadequate defense funding that has shrunk our
operational forces, harmed their readiness, stunted their
modernization, and, as every single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
has repeatedly testified before the Committee on Armed Services, put
the lives of our servicemembers at greater risk. I want to repeat that.
Every one of our military leaders in uniform has said that because of
what we have done with the so-called sequestration, it has put the
lives of our servicemembers at greater risk. Don't we have an
obligation not to do that?
Now we are paying the awful price. This summer alone, 42--I repeat,
42--servicemembers tragically perished in accidents during routine
training operations. 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 crashed in Mississippi and killed all 16
troops on board.
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 missing during a
training mission off the coast of Yemen, and one soldier died.
Just last week 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.
For the two Pacific Fleet naval collisions, ship repairs are
estimated to cost more than half a billion dollars.
The lives lost in each of these incidents were priceless.
Over the past 3 years, a total of 185 men and women in uniform have
been killed in noncombat accidents. During this same period, 44
servicemembers were killed in combat. The bottom line is this, and I
want all of my colleagues to concentrate on what I am about to say: We
are killing more of our own people in training than our enemies are in
combat.
We were warned about this. We were warned. We were warned by our
senior defense and military leaders and by many of us in Congress.
Earlier this year, Secretary Mattis testified that ``no enemy in the
field has done more to harm the combat readiness of our military than
sequestration.''
Secretary Mattis went on to say: ``We are no longer managing risk; we
are now gambling.'' Now, it is clear that we are not only gambling with
our

[[Page S5247]]

ability to fight and win wars. We are also gambling with the very
ability of our troops to operate safely during peacetime.
In that same hearing, General Dunford--I will remind my colleagues,
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--described what is at stake
if we continue down the path of budget cuts, saying: ``In just a few
years if we don't change the trajectory, we will lose our qualitative
and our quantitative competitive advantage, [and] the consequences will
be profound.'' Those are not my words. They are the words of the senior
general officer in the U.S. military.
Each of our military service chiefs has testified time and again
before congressional committees about the dangers of sequestration,
Budget Control Act-level spending, and repeated continuing resolutions.
The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Richardson, testified: ``Eight
years of continuing resolutions including a year of sequestration have
driven additional costs and time into just about everything that we do.
. . . The disruption this uncertainty imposes translates directly into
risks for our Navy and our nation.''
General Neller, Commandant of the Marine Corps, said: ``Sequestration
impacts on key modernization programs will have catastrophic effects on
achieving desired capabilities to defeat emerging threats and will
place an unacceptable burden on legacy programs.''
The Air Force Chief of Staff, General Goldfein, testified:
``Repealing sequestration, returning to stable budgets without extended
continuing resolutions and allowing us the flexibility to reduce excess
infrastructure and make strategic trades are essential to success.''
The Army Chief of Staff, General Milley has said: ``Candidly, failure
to pass a budget, in my view both as an American citizen and chief of
staff of the United States Army, constitutes professional
malpractice.''
``Professional malpractice,'' he said.
He added: ``A year-long CR or a return to the [Budget Control Act-
level] funding will . . . increase risk to the nation, and it will
ultimately result in dead Americans on a future battlefield.''
We need look no further than all of the recent training accidents,
collisions, and crashes for evidence that these warnings and concerns
were well placed, and the troubling signs were there. Failure to meet
training requirements and fulfill safety certifications has become all
too common in the force--especially in the U.S. Navy.
Recent reporting details a troubled state of affairs. The GAO found
that 37 percent--well over one-third--of the training certifications
for U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers based in Japan are expired--
technically meaning that they are not prepared.
The USS McCain had expired training certifications for 6 out of the
10 key warfare mission areas prior to its collision. The USS Fitzgerald
had expired certifications for all of its 10 mission areas.
Lest anyone think the Navy is the only service facing troubling
readiness statistics, I will remind my colleagues that only 5--5 out of
the 58--Army brigades and 4 of the 64 Air Force squadrons are combat-
ready.
There is plenty of responsibility to go around for the deteriorated
state of our military. The Senate Armed Services Committee will
continue to hold hearings and conduct rigorous oversight of these
military readiness challenges, looking at everything from command
responsibility to readiness standards, to training culture within our
military. We will continue seeking explanations for the causes of these
incidents, corrective actions to remedy these causes, and
accountability from leadership.
Yet we can't ignore Congress's role and our responsibility. Years of
budget cuts have forced our military to try to do too much with too
little. As we have asked our military to maintain a high operational
tempo with limited resources, we know what has suffered: Training,
maintenance, readiness, effectiveness, and the lives of too many brave
young servicemembers.
But despite the abundant evidence that our military faces a readiness
crisis that is putting lives at risk, this body voted just last week to
put the Department of Defense on yet another continuing resolution for
the start of fiscal year 2018. We know that continuing resolutions
cause a great deal of harm to our military.
Just last week, Secretary Mattis sent a letter to the Armed Services
Committee detailing the detrimental effects of a continuing resolution.
He said that the impacts of a CR are felt immediately by our military
and will grow exponentially over time if we repeat this mistake in
December. In the next 3 months, the Navy will delay ship inductions and
reduce flying hours, the Army will postpone maintenance, the Air Force
will limit execution of infrastructure funding, and all services will
delay training and curtail recruitment, leaving, according to Secretary
Mattis, ``critical gaps in the workforce skill set.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a letter from Secretary Mattis outlining his concerns.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Secretary of Defense,

Washington, DC, September 8, 2017.
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in response to your August
29, 2017 letter regarding the potential impacts of another
fiscal year under Continuing Resolution (CR) authority. I
appreciate and share your concern in this matter.
Long term CRs impact the readiness of our forces and their
equipment at a time when security threats are extraordinarily
high. The longer the CR, the greater the consequences for our
force. A CR, if required, avoids a government shutdown and
provides an opportunity for a long-term solution that lifts
the BCA caps.
In the long term, it is the budget caps mandated in the
Budget Control Act (BCA) that impose the greater threat to
the Department and to national security. BCA-level funding
reverses the gains we have made in readiness, and undermines
our efforts to increase lethality and grow the force. Without
relief from the BCA caps, our air, land, and sea fleets will
continue to erode. BCA caps obstruct our path to
modernization, and continue to narrow the technical
competitive advantage we presently maintain over our
adversaries.
The Service Secretaries and Chiefs have identified many of
their specific concerns about operating under a CR
(enclosed). I appreciate that you share our concerns, and
look forward to working with you in FY 18 as we build a
solution to alleviate the BCA caps.
I have provided similar letters to the other Chairs and
Ranking Members of the House and Senate Committees on Armed
Services and Appropriations.
James N. Mattis.
Enclosure.

Impacts of a Continuing Resolution Authority in Fiscal Year 2018

This summary describes the most likely impacts of operating
under a Continuing Resolution (CR), if enacted for Fiscal
Year 2018 (FY18). The impacts of a CR depend in part on the
level of funding provided and the duration of the CR period.
The Military Departments and Defense Agencies are
justifiably concerned that under a CR, the Department cannot
reprogram FY18 funds until a MI appropriation is enacted.
Inability to reprogram CR funds drastically reduces the
ability to respond to urgent requirements or to address
funding gaps that damage readiness.
During a CR, we remain committed to supporting the
warfighter. The Military Departments will realign or execute
CR and existing budgetary resources within the limits of
their authorities to fully support forward-deployed
operations, direct support activities, and urgent operations
of the Combatant Commands. Finding ways to fully fund such
essential activities while operating during a CR does not
make CRs any less disruptive or detrimental--in reality,
doing so imposes a great burden on DoD's foundational
capabilities, and immediately manifests in impacts on
training, readiness and maintenance, personnel, and
contracting.
Training: Impacts begin immediately, within the first 30
days of a CR. By 90 days, the lost training is unrecoverable
due to subsequent scheduled training events. These training
losses reduce the effectiveness of subsequent training events
in FY18 and in subsequent years.
Most major exercises and training events are scheduled for
the spring and summer, and presume individual and unit-level
training was completed. Training scheduled during the period
of the CR, however, must be re-scoped and scaled to
incorporate only mission essential tasks and objectives, so
units enter the major exercises less prepared.
For example, the scope of a Joint live fire field training
exercise (FTX) scheduled to execute in conjunction with
annual Marine Corps weapons certification events may have to
be reduced during a CR by limiting weapons crews to firing at
levels that firing tables specify as necessary to maintain
certification, thus forgoing the added training benefit of
firing weapon systems in a Joint operational context. Without
this experience, the

[[Page S5248]]

Marines would then enter their major exercises and training
rotations without the benefit of having practiced
coordinating joint fires, or the experience of firing in an
operational environment.
Air Force must preserve core readiness training for
deployed or next-to-deploy units, at the cost of
institutional training and flying hours. Lack of funds to
stand-up two F-16 training squadrons, reduced aircraft
availability, and inability to grow the force (military and
civilian) will further reduce pilot production, leaving the
Air Force unable to train the number of pilots necessary for
continued readiness recovery. Cancellation of exercises will
further degrade pilot training and readiness.
Readiness and Maintenance: The impacts of a CR are felt
immediately, and grow exponentially over time. Although
maintenance impacts can be mitigated for some activities
operating under a 3-month CR, in areas, such as Navy Ship
Depot Maintenance, funding shortfalls result in delays in
Naval vessel availability, which may affect subsequent
deployment rotations.
Under a CR, funding reductions will impact all major
activities not related to deployed forces, including: depot
maintenance, individual and collective training, and
munitions procurement. Failure to properly fund readiness
restoration initiatives in a stable and consistent manner
will impede the recovery of our readiness, which has just
begun to see tangible results, and may prove fatal in a
future conflict with major-power adversaries. Furthermore, a
ready force requires continued and stable investment in our
munitions inventory and a CR will not provide the Services
the necessary flexibility to procure and develop weapons, nor
build sufficient infrastructure to align with the
Department's readiness recovery efforts.
Navy will delay the induction of 11 ships, which will
exacerbate the planned ship maintenance in FY18, and will
slip ship availabilities into FYI 9, further impacting that
plan. FY18 Ship availabilities considered for schedule slip:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ship Planned start Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KIDD DDG-100.................... 19 Nov............ Puget Sound
PINCKNEY DDG-91................. 04 Dec............ San Diego
CORNADO LCS-4................... 15 Dec............ San Diego
PORT ROYAL CG-73................ 22 Dec............ Hawaii
PRINCETON CG-59................. 25 Dec............ San Diego
SAN DIEGO LPD-22................ 31 Dec............ San Diego
CARTER HALL LSD-50.............. 22 Jan............ Virginia
OSCAR AUSTIN DDG-79............. 02 Feb............ Virginia
VELLA GULF CG-72................ 19 Feb............ Virginia
JAMES E WILLIAMS DDG-95......... 19 Feb............ Virginia
MAHAN DDG-72.................... 19 Feb............ Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under a 90-Day CR, all listed ship inductions will be
delayed, as the shipyards' capacity is not capable of fully
``catching-up'' lost work, thus the entire schedule slips to
the right. This means that even a relatively short CR creates
delays in ship depot maintenance, thus deployment timelines,
into subsequent years.
Under a 3 month CR, Army will defer supply transactions,
and then later have to pay more to get parts fabricated or
shipped quickly, in order to keep up with maintenance
timelines. Under a 6 month CR, Army will order parts from
sources outside the DoD supply system, just to keep up with
operational demand. These external transactions will cost
more and fail to leverage the efficiencies built into the
centralized supply system.
Under a CR, the Army will have about $400 million per month
less in their operating accounts. Beginning in a 3 month CR,
It will be forced to restrict home station training
Immediately under a CR, Army will postpone all non-critical
maintenance work orders until later in the year.
Within the first 3 months of CR, Navy will reduce flying
hours and steaming days for those units not deployed or next
to deploy. It will delay the replenishment of spares and
repair parts on supply shelves in our ships, submarines, and
aircraft carriers across the non-deployed Fleet.
The Military Departments will limit execution of
infrastructure funding by prioritizing life, health and
safety requirements. For the Air Force, this will affect 79
major installations worldwide and negatively impact aircraft
bed-downs and mission generation.
The lack of a National Defense Authorization Act, the legal
requirement for specific appropriations for major military
construction projects, and new start restrictions within the
CR combine to mean that no new major military construction
projects can be initiated using CR finds, with an inevitable
delay in project schedules and potential increased costs. For
the Navy this will impact 37 projects; the Air Force has 16
projects; the Army has 38 projects.
Personnel: The uncertainty imposed during a 3-month CR
causes most hiring actions and recruitment to be curtailed,
and vacancies to then be re-announced once an appropriation
is enacted. This disruption leaves critical gaps in the
workforce skill set and causes unnecessary angst among
military and civil servants, making the Government a far-less
attractive option to the highest-skilled potential
candidates.
Both Congress and the President agree need exists to add
military personnel to meet critical skill gaps such as
pilots, maintainers, cyber experts, and nuclear trained
personnel. A CR will delay the accession process, with the
consequence that units and organizations will continue to
lack the full complement of personnel they need to be
effective.
Professional development and training for both military and
civilians will be delayed.
Non-critical travel, which includes PCS moves for civilians
and military members and their families, will be curtailed.
This often results in missed hiring opportunities as
potential employees pursue other options. It creates
unnecessary turmoil for families who had otherwise planned to
relocate, whose orders are delayed; and may then result in
missed schoolyear timing for dependent spouses and children.
Adverse outcomes for medical beneficiaries experiencing
potentially life threatening illnesses due to delays in
receiving the required treatment. Beneficiary health care is
an entitlement and there is no mechanism to slow down or
reduce the demand for services.
Payments to medical care providers for services rendered
for patients will be delayed. This results in a potential
reduction in future access to private sector health care for
DoD beneficiaries, as a result of providers discontinuing
services to patients paid by TRICARE.
Contracting: The impacts of a CR on DoD contracting efforts
are significant and begin within the first 30-days of each
CR. Every contract that has to be re-competed represents
additional work for the already-pressed DoD acquisition
workforce. In addition to these increased administrative
costs, new start rules and funding constraints carried
forward under each CR extension combine to increase the
likelihood that costs of material and labor in the contracts
themselves will also grow. To the vendors and manufacturers,
the Government becomes a less reliable, higher-risk customer.
As is the case in the private sector, DoD saves money by
buying in quantity. When we are forced to sever contracts and
renegotiate terms with each CR, our costs grow to offset the
increased risks and delays; we offer vendors less stability
and predictability, and pay accordingly.
Acquisition programs are forced to use incremental contract
actions to preserve efforts and schedules, which inevitably
results in higher program costs and schedule delays. Each
iteration of contract rework further taxes the DoD
Contracting community, doubling or tripling their workload
annually.
Under a CR, there are generally no new-starts, and no
production rate increases for acquisition programs with
budgetary program quantities of record.
In FY18:
In the first 3 months under a CR, the Army has 18 new
starts and 8 production rate increases that would be
impacted. These include the Paladin Integration Management
Improvement, Interim Combat Service rifle, Multi-role Anti-
armor Anti-personnel Weapon System, Lightweight 30mm cannon
and the Armored Multi-purpose Vehicle. Rate increases are
planned for handguns, TOW2 missiles, M240L medium machine gun
and the Advanced Tactical Parachute system.
Beyond three months (4-12 months), the Army would have 24
additional new starts and 7 additional production rate
increases. The new starts include the Udairi Range Target
Lifters, Heavy Equipment Transporter System, and the Modular
Catastrophic Recovery System. Production rate increases
include modifications to Stinger and Avenger, Guided Multiple
Launch Rocket System, and the Reduced Range Practice Rocket.
The Navy has 7 procurement contracts that will be delayed
by a 6-month CR due to the new start restrictions. It also
has 12 planned production rate increases that will be
deferred and 3 research and development new starts.
The Air Force has a total of 6 new starts that would be
impacted by a 6-month CR. These include multiple F-15C and F-
16 upgrades and the Joint Space operations Center Mission
system.
Funding limitations for all research and development will
result in the Services assessing the relative priorities of
their programs, resulting in providing only minimum
sustaining funding to the selected programs.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the vote we took to begin the year on a
continuing resolution locks the Department of Defense into last year's
funding level. It prevents them from reprogramming funding to meet
emerging needs. It prohibits the start of new programs to modernize for
future threats. Perhaps worst of all, a continuing resolution mandates
a level of spending that is $89 billion less than the fiscal year 2018
funding level authorized in this legislation.
When the Senate voted to put the Department of Defense on a
continuing resolution, it voted in favor of the status quo for our
military, where more servicemembers are dying in accidents than in all
the wars we are fighting combined. Last week's vote signaled that the
current, undeniably degraded state of our Armed Forces is just fine
with us. It was irresponsible and unacceptable.
We must all do better. Pentagon leaders must make clear-eyed
assessments and ask for what they fully need, and this body must
provide the resources required. That is the only way to stop gambling
and restore readiness, and this is the bare minimum we owe to the brave
men and women who fight to defend this Nation.
That is why this legislation is more important and vital than ever.
The

[[Page S5249]]

NDAA delivers the resources, equipment, and training our men and women
in uniform need to meet the increasingly complex challenges of today's
world. It begins the process of truly restoring readiness and
rebuilding our military.
The Defense authorization bill authorizes a base defense budget that,
together with the administration's request of $8 billion for other
defense activities, supports a total defense budget of $640 billion in
funding for the Department of Defense and the national security
programs at the Department of Energy. The legislation also authorizes
$60 billion for overseas contingency operations. In total, this
legislation supports a national defense topline of $700 billion.
This funding is critical to begin addressing the readiness shortfall
and modernization crisis currently facing our military. With our
adversaries investing heavily in their own militaries and developing
future warfighting capabilities intended to erode our military
advantage, we cannot wait any longer to recapitalize our forces and
restore our capabilities.
The national defense topline in this legislation is significantly
higher than the administration's budget request. It is worth
considering why, in committee, more than one-quarter of the Members of
this body--one-quarter of the Members of this body, Senators of both
parties and of all political stripes--voted for a higher defense
topline. The answer is simple. Today's national security threats demand
more resources. While not every crisis has a military solution, our
military remains an indispensable aspect of America's ability to
project power and provide the framework for global stability and
security.
The problem is that funding to meet these national security threats
and challenges has been constrained by the arbitrary caps of the Budget
Control Act. Members from both sides of the aisle have acknowledged
that the Budget Control Act simply does not allow for adequate spending
on national defense.
While altering the Budget Control Act or the spending caps is outside
of the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee, the committee has
expressed its support in this legislation for the unconditional repeal
of the Budget Control Act. Congress must summon the political courage
to admit that this legislation has failed, rise above politics, and fix
it.
The Budget Control Act has not achieved its intended purpose by
reducing the deficit. For years, it has prevented Congress from
providing our military servicemembers with the resources they need.
This cannot continue. I tell my colleagues, this cannot continue. We
can, and must, do better.
Under the Budget Control Act, defense spending for fiscal year 2018
would be capped at $549 billion. That is $54 billion less than what the
President requested for defense and $91 billion less than what the
Armed Services Committee supported.
The members of the Armed Services Committee agreed unanimously that
any defense budget at that level would be inadequate and unacceptable.
That has been reinforced time and again over the last several years in
testimony from senior military and civilian defense leaders who have
come before our committee with warnings of the danger of the BCA
spending caps and sequestration.
At the conclusion of debate on this legislation, the Senate's passage
of the NDAA has served as evidence that an overwhelming bipartisan
majority of this body agrees that the status quo is not sufficient, and
we need to spend more money on defense to keep our Nation safe.
Even so, the unfortunate truth is, with BCA as the law of the land,
$549 billion is the only defense budget that is currently legal, unless
Congress acts. It is up to this Congress to decide if that is the
defense budget we want. In doing so, we must remember that a BCA-level
defense budget cannot give us the military we need.
The President also acknowledges that a BCA-level defense budget of
$549 billion is inadequate, and he campaigned on the promise of
rebuilding the military. That is why it was so disappointing that the
President's budget request did not deliver on the promise of the
military buildup we need.
The defense budget request came in at $603 billion. It is important
to recognize three important factors about that number. First, it is
rooted in the same arbitrary policy as $549 billion, since $603 billion
is simply the original BCA cap before sequestration takes effect;
second, it represents only a 3-percent increase over the Obama
administration's defense budget plan; and, third, it is plainly
inadequate to meet our Nation's defense needs.
One indication of this is that the military services sent this
Congress lists of unfunded requirements. That meant requirements they
have but we are not funding, and that means over $30 billion that our
military needs to do its job. It is time for Congress to do our job and
provide the resources they need.
What our military needs is a real buildup. The NDAA is the start of
what will be a years-long process of rebuilding our military after
years of devastating cuts to the defense budget. We must begin that
process now. Our men and women in uniform can't afford to wait any
longer.
The NDAA also builds on the reforms this Congress has passed in
recent years. By continuing important efforts to reorganize the
Department of Defense, spur innovation in defense technology, and
improve defense acquisition and business operations, the NDAA seeks to
strengthen accountability and streamline the process of getting our
warfighters what they need to succeed. At the same time, it prioritizes
accountability from the Department and demands the best use of every
taxpayer dollar.
The NDAA authorizes a pay raise for our troops. It improves military
family readiness and supports the civilians and contractors who support
our Armed Forces. It provides support for our allies and partners
around the world who are dedicated to advancing the cause of freedom,
deterring the aggression of our adversaries, and defeating the scourge
of terrorism.
This legislation recognizes the reality of the dangerous world our
men and women in uniform face every day. As threats turn into crises
around the world, we have asked these brave servicemembers to do more
with less. That must end now.
The NDAA takes important steps to deter Russian aggression, whether
across its borderers or in cyber space. Russia continues to occupy
Crimea, destabilize Ukraine, threaten our NATO allies, violate the 1987
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and bolster the Assad regime
in Syria. In an unparalleled attack on our core interests and values,
Russia engaged in an active, purposeful campaign to undermine the
integrity of American democracy and affect the outcome of the 2016
Presidential election.
The legislation authorizes nearly $5 billion for the European
Deterrence Initiative to bolster U.S. capabilities in Europe and
support our regional allies who feel the constant threat of revanchist
Russian aggression. It also authorizes $500 million to provide security
assistance to Ukraine, including the defensive lethal assistance the
Ukrainians need to defend themselves. The legislation authorizes $65
million for research-and-development program on a ground-launched,
intermediate-range missile in order to begin to close the capability
gap opened by the Russian violation of the INF Treaty, without placing
the United States in violation of the treaty.
In supporting the fight against resurgent terrorism in the Middle
East, the NDAA authorizes $1.8 billion in funding for counter-ISIS
efforts via the Train and Equip Programs in Iraq and Syria. To support
the continued mission in Afghanistan, the legislation authorizes $4.9
billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund. Importantly, the NDAA
also authorizes 4,000 additional visas through the special immigration
status under the Afghan Allies Protection Act. The legislation also
authorizes $705 million for Israeli cooperative missile defense
programs.
The NDAA authorizes the Secretary of Defense to establish the Asia-
Pacific Stability Initiative, a funding mechanism that has the
potential to reshape the U.S. approach to this important region,
reassure our allies and partners, and send a resounding message to our
potential adversaries about the strength of our commitment. The
legislation also authorizes $8.5 billion for

[[Page S5250]]

the Missile Defense Agency to strengthen homeland, regional, and space-
based missile defense systems. In particular, the legislation
authorizes funding for up to 28 additional ground-based interceptors in
Alaska, which could be a crucial part of our Nation's defense against a
potential North Korea missile threat.
The NDAA would allow our military to embark on an ambitious program
of modernization, one that is desperately needed and long overdue.
Across the services, this legislation provides funding above the
administration's request to meet the list of unfunded priorities from
the Department of Defense. Above and beyond the administration's
request, the legislation funds 24 more Joint Strike Fighters, 10 more
F/A-18 Super Hornets, and 5 additional ships for the Navy. The
legislation also authorizes funding for an increase in end strength for
the Army and the Marine Corps, adding 6,000 additional soldiers and
1,000 additional marines.
At the same time, as part of rigorous congressional oversight of
defense spending, this legislation demands accountability for results,
promotes transparency, and protects taxpayer dollars. The legislation
identifies targeted reductions to wasteful or underperforming programs,
especially those that heavily rely upon software and information
technology systems, and reinvests the savings in high-priority needs
for the warfighters. The goal, as always, is to ensure our men and
women in uniform receive the capabilities they need on time, on
schedule, and at a reasonable cost.
The NDAA makes important efforts to correct the glaring and dangerous
lack of an effective strategy and policy for the information domain,
including cyber, space, and electronic warfare. Without a sufficient
response to previous congressional calls for a comprehensive strategy
from the executive branch, the NDAA establishes a U.S. policy for cyber
deterrence, cyber response, and cyber warfare.
With respect to space, decisionmaking is currently fragmented across
more than 60 offices in the Department of Defense--I repeat, 60 offices
in the Department of Defense. Funding for space programs is also near
30-year lows, while the threats and our reliance on space are at their
highest and growing. This legislation fully funds our space
requirements and authorizes additional funding for the military's
underfunded priorities for space. The NDAA also establishes a new DOD
Chief Information Warfare Officer--a position that would streamline a
current bureaucracy that is too often duplicative, inefficient, and
ineffective, and instead assigns responsibility and accountability to
one leader for all matters relating to the information environment--
including space, cyber security, electronic warfare, and the
electromagnetic spectrum.
Finally, the legislation takes several steps to bolster border
security and homeland defense. It authorizes $791 million for the
Department of Defense Counterdrug Programs. It would authorize and
encourage the National Guard to enhance border security capabilities
while gaining effective unit and individual training. It continues to
support the United States-Israel anti-tunneling cooperation program,
which helps to improve our efforts to restrict the flow of drugs across
the U.S. southern border.
This is an ambitious piece of legislation. It is one that reflects
the growing threats to our Nation. Everything about the NDAA is threat-
driven, including the $640 billion topline, which is based on an
assessment of the strategic environment rather than an arbitrary
adherence to budget agreements that have been overtaken by events.
As we move forward with consideration of this legislation, I stand
ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass
this important legislation and give our military the resources they
need and deserve. We ask a lot of our men and women in uniform, and
they never let us down. We must not let them down. Their service
represents the best of our country, and this Congress should always
honor their sacrifice.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the fiscal year 2018
national defense authorization bill, which was passed unanimously out
of the Armed Services Committee on July 10.
First, I would like to acknowledge Chairman McCain, whose leadership
on this committee and in this body has been invaluable, indeed
historic. His contribution, his indefatigable energy, his commitment to
the men and women who serve us in uniform is something that has shaped
this legislation and indeed shaped our country profoundly.
Chairman McCain ensured the committee's thoughtful consideration of
the President's request, which produced bipartisan legislation that I
believe will improve the readiness, capabilities, and quality of life
of our military personnel and their families.
I wish to highlight some key aspects of the bill, beginning with a
central national security issue--North Korea. Kim Jong Un is intent on
developing a nuclear weapon that can be mounted on the head of a
missile and shot at the U.S. homeland. Unfortunately, there is no set
of military options that lead to a quick and certain strategy on North
Korea. Diplomatic engagement that leads to a freeze of North Korea's
missile and nuclear programs is perhaps our best path forward. In order
to bring North Korea to the table, we must reinforce our ballistic
missile defense systems and demonstrate that all options, including
military options, remain on the table. To that end, this bill
authorizes additional funding above the budget request to make upgrades
to our Ground-based Midcourse Defense system to protect the homeland
and to buy 24 additional THAAD interceptors, a regional defensive
system that we have deployed to the Republic of Korea.
This bill also enhances our security cooperation in the Pacific by
authorizing the Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative, which will help
strengthen our posture in the region and provide additional support and
security assistance to our partners and allies.
Another significant national security issue is the escalating threat
from Russia's maligned influence activities. The nature and extent of
this threat was brought home with Russia's interference in our 2016
elections, but our allies and partners in Europe have been dealing with
this threat for many years now. This bill contains significant
resources, through the European Deterrence Initiative and the Ukraine
Security Assistance Initiative, to reinforce our military presence in
Europe and build the capacity of the NATO alliance to counter Russia's
efforts to intimidate and coerce its neighbors.
The bill takes critical steps to prepare for any attempt by Russia to
attack our democracy in next year's midterm elections. One provision
states that it is the policy of the United States to respond, using all
instruments of national power, to any and all cyber attacks that intend
to cause significant harm to the Nation, including undermining U.S.
democratic society. This is a clear message to Vladimir Putin that
Kremlin influence is unacceptable and will be strongly answered.
A second provision, which is an amendment I offered that was accepted
in committee, would require the Secretary of Defense to create a task
force to integrate all Department organizations responsible for what is
called ``information warfare'' in order to achieve a unified and
coherent capability to counter, deter, and conduct strategic
information operations. The Department of Defense must play a vital
role developing strategies and executing operations to counter and
respond to Russia's aggression against America and our close allies in
Europe.
But efforts by the Department of Defense are not enough. It is
essential to have a whole-of-government approach if we are to deal
effectively with the multifaceted threat posed by Russia, as well as
China, North Korea, Iran, and others against the West.
We need to develop comprehensive and specific strategies, taking
advantage of all the instruments of national power and the
contributions of friends and allies to deter and respond to aggression
in all of its forms. We need to bring together the authorities and
capabilities of law enforcement, homeland defense, the military, and
the intelligence community to confront cyber threats that recognize no
organizational or functional boundaries.
At the same time, we must improve how we work with the private
sector,

[[Page S5251]]

which owns and operates the critical infrastructure on which our
democracy, our society, and our prosperity depend. This bill advances
our goal of ensuring that we have the strategy, organization, and
resources necessary to counter the complex challenge posed by Russia's
maligned activities and the maligned activities of other state and
nonstate actors.
This legislation also provides needed authorities and funding for our
military personnel who are engaged in operations abroad. Through the
support of our partners on the ground, we continue to make significant
gains against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. However, our partners require
sustained support to clear the remaining ISIS strongholds and ensure a
sustainable security environment going forward. Therefore, this bill
authorizes $1.8 billion to support the Iraq and Syria Train and Equip
Programs.
The bill also includes $4.9 billion for the Afghan Security Forces
Fund to assist our Afghan partners as they continue to take the fight
to the enemy while also working diligently to build and professionalize
their security forces. This is a critical investment for the stability
of the region and the security of the international community.
With respect to our services, we have taken steps to improve their
capabilities, their readiness, and their ability to fight and win. With
respect to our Navy and Marine Corps, this bill represents a
continuation of the efforts that are so important for improving their
ability to address the challenges of this new century. The proposals
would begin significant efforts to improve the readiness of Navy and
Marine Corps aircraft, ships, and weapons systems.
It is clear that high operational tempo, coupled with limited
resources for training and maintenance, contributed to the recent
tragedies with the USS John S. McCain, the USS Fitzgerald, and the V-22
crash off the coast of Australia. First, we must recognize the
sacrifice of sailors and marines and pay our respects to their families
for the sacrifices they have given to this Nation. That sacrifice
continues to impress all of us, with the contribution of everyone
wearing the uniform of the United States, their dedication to their
country, and their calls for renewed commitment by ourselves to work
together to achieve the ends of this great Nation. We must prioritize
resourcing for our military so we can ensure that our servicemembers
have access to the best equipment and the best training possible so
they can conduct these missions safely in spite of the very difficult
challenges we face.
This bill provides significant investments in our next-generation
Virginia-class submarines to ensure our Navy remains dominant under the
sea. It authorizes multiyear procurement contract authority and
advanced procurement for up to 13 Virginia-class submarines. In
addition, the bill adds $750 million for economic order quantity
material for the Virginia-class Block V multiyear procurement program.
Meeting today with the Secretary of the Navy, he once again reiterated
that the Virginia-class submarine program, together with the Ohio
replacement program, and the ballistic missile submarine program are
the highest priorities of the U.S. Navy. This bill supports those high
priorities.
The Navy will be able to use this funding to expand the industrial
base across the second-tier and third-tier contractors, anticipating an
increase in production needed to increase submarine force levels. An
additional $450 million is authorized to increase support for expanding
the industrial base or for advance procurement to buy an additional
Virginia-class submarine in fiscal year 2020.
The bill provides authority for another multiyear contract for the
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program and provides the Navy the
authority to buy as many as 15 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. It also
adds $1.8 billion to buy a third destroyer in fiscal year 2018.
The bill also authorizes $1 billion for incremental funding for
construction of an amphibious ship and more than $1.2 billion for
several auxiliary ship programs, including five surface connectors and
one expeditionary sea base.
With respect to naval aviation, this bill also recommends significant
increases for multiple programs. Notably, it authorizes 10 additional
F/A-18 fighters, 10 F-35 fighter variants, 4 additional KC-130J
tankers, and 6 additional P-8A submarine hunters.
With respect to the Air Force, the bill also makes significant
increases in authorization by adding an additional $10.4 billion for
Air Force programs to purchase 14 additional F-35A fighters, 12 MC-130J
aircraft, 3 additional KC-46A tankers, and authorizing funding for
replacement of the A-10.
With respect to the Army, I am pleased that this bill also makes a
number of important investments in Army modernization. It authorizes
full funding for the Department's request for AH-64 Apache attack
helicopters and UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters. In addition, the
bill supports the Army's unfunded requirement for additional Apaches by
including $312.7 million to procure additional helicopters.
Likewise, the bill fully supports the Army's request for modernizing
Army ground combat vehicles, including M1 Abrams tanks, Bradley
Fighting Vehicles, and the Stryker combat vehicle. The bill also
includes funding to support Army unfunded requirements, including
recapitalizing Abrams tanks and procuring a fourth upgraded set of
Double V-Hull Strykers.
Finally, this bill makes targeted reductions in Army network
modernization programs, since Army Chief of Staff General Milley plans
to make a decision soon on the way forward with regard to these
programs. Once a decision has been made, it is my hope that the Army
will provide the committee with a detailed plan for network
modernization, to include details on the funding necessary for this
approach.
Our Special Operations Forces remain at the ``tip of the spear'' of
our efforts to counter violent extremist groups. The bill fully funds
the U.S. Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, and includes an increase
of approximately $85 million to help address unfunded requirements for
additional intelligence collection, precision strike, undersea
mobility, and communications capabilities. Additionally, the bill
includes new authority designed to support the ability of our special
operators to work with partners to counter irregular warfare, or so-
called gray zone challenges, posed by our adversaries.
The bill authorizes funding to modernize our triad of nuclear-capable
air, sea, and ground delivery platforms--the bedrock of our defense
posture against an existential threat. The B-21 heavy bomber is
authorized at the requested level to continue engineering,
manufacturing, and development to be fielded in the mid to late 2020s.
This heavy bomber will replace the dependable but aging B-52s, which
were built in the 1960s. The committee is working with a team at the
Government Accountability Office for rigorous oversight on the new
bomber program. When the B-52 retires in the 2040 timeframe, its
airframe will be approaching 100 years old, and the grandchildren of
the original pilots will be flying the plane.
Turning to the area of undersea deterrence, in order to maintain a
sea-based deterrent, the current fleet of 14 Ohio-class submarines must
be replaced starting in 2027 due to the potential for hull fatigue. By
then, the first Ohio submarine will be 46 years old--the oldest
submarine to have sailed in our Navy in its history.
The third leg of our triad, our land-based ICBMs, will not need to be
replaced until the 2030s. We have authorized continued development of a
replacement for this responsive leg of the triad, which acts as a
counterbalance to hostile ICBMs.
I know there is concern about Russia's violation of the Intermediate-
Range Nuclear Force Treaty, which is a foundational arms control treaty
from the late 1980s. This committee has received classified briefings
on the actions taken by Russia, and they are indeed serious. I urge all
of my colleagues to request these classified briefings if they have not
done so. While some have called for the United States to perform
developmental testing of systems that are noncompliant with the treaty,
this committee has pursued a cautious and measured approach of looking
at what kinds of research within the confines of the treaty we can
perform if called upon to counter this threat. Again, let me

[[Page S5252]]

stress that I do not support withdrawing from the treaty, and our best
approach is to bring the Russians back into compliance.
With respect to energy use, which is an important aspect to the
bottom line in the operational capabilities of our military, the bill
contains several provisions that enhance how the Department pursues
energy resilience, which directly supports readiness and mission
assurance of our warfighters. Additionally, this bill contains a
requirement for a defense threat assessment and master plan on climate-
related events and a comprehensive strategy and technology roadmap on
how the Department can more effectively use water.
In the area of science, technology, and innovation, I am pleased that
this bill authorizes increases in funding for science and technology
research efforts by over $375 million above the President's request,
including a total of $2.3 billion for university research programs.
These programs are critical to ensuring that our military retains its
technological battlefield superiority in areas like cyber security,
unmanned and robotic systems, high-energy lasers, space, and
hypersonics. The bill streamlines the ability to access expertise and
technologies in our Nation's universities and small businesses, whose
expertise and innovation is the cornerstone of the technologies on
which our military depends.
Additionally, it continues efforts to strengthen the capabilities of
our defense labs and test ranges, including removing redtape that
inhibits their effectiveness, and supporting their efforts to build
world-class technical workforces. The bill also authorizes two new
innovation offices, the Strategic Capabilities Office and the DIUx
Silicon Valley office, with special authorities to hire the unique
program management talent they need to execute their innovative
activities.
In the area of acquisition reform, I am pleased that the bill
continues efforts to streamline procurement practices to support the
Department's efforts to obtain the best goods, technologies, and
services on a timely basis at fair and competitive prices. The bill
includes provisions from Senator Warren and Senator Blumenthal to
ensure that the Pentagon works with contractors to safeguard worker
conditions. The bill also makes significant and needed changes to the
way the Department buys, evolving toward more agile and effective
commercial acquisition practices. These new practices should enable the
Department to build and buy the most modern software and IT for our
weapons systems, platforms, and business systems. The bill also
includes a provision from Senator McCaskill that will provide more
transparency and require more deliberate planning in the use of service
contractors in order to control this rapidly growing part of the
Pentagon budget.
In the area of Pentagon management, I am pleased that the bill
includes provisions to improve financial stewardship to help the
Pentagon get a clean audit opinion on its financial books. The Pentagon
has been trying to obtain a clean audit opinion for 27 years, and the
continual failure to do so calls into question its ability to steward
the large funding increases proposed in this bill transparently and
efficiently.
This bill accomplishes much on behalf of our servicemembers and the
Department of Defense. It authorizes a 2.1-percent pay raise for all
servicemembers and reauthorizes a number of expiring bonus and special
pay authorities to encourage enlistment, reenlistment, and continued
service for Active-Duty and Reserve component military personnel. The
bill permanently extends the Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance--
scheduled to expire next year--provides $25 million for supplemental
impact aid, and $10 million in impact aid for severe disabilities,
including $5 million available for the Secretary to direct to schools
to address areas with higher concentration of disabled military
children.
This legislation also enhances military family readiness by
addressing the shortage of childcare workers and increasing flexibility
for military families undergoing permanent change of station.
A provision in the bill also addresses the Marine United situation by
making the nonconsensual sharing of photos and videos of an
individual's private anatomy or of sexually explicit conduct involving
the individual a criminal offense under the UCMJ, even when the initial
taking of the photo or video was consensual.
Once again, this bill includes authorization for a needed package of
healthcare reforms, including modest increases to working-age retiree
healthcare cost shares, while ensuring that the cost share remain far
below those required by civilian plans. It also requires the Department
to establish a Medicare Advantage demonstration program for TRICARE For
Life beneficiaries that will achieve better healthcare outcomes for
beneficiaries with chronic health conditions as well as cost savings
for the beneficiaries and for the Medicare TRICARE Programs.
During floor consideration of this bill, Chairman McCain and I would
like to offer an amendment that will authorize a new BRAC round. I know
this topic concerns many of our colleagues, but I believe it is in
necessary to allow the Department to gain efficiencies and savings by
shedding excess infrastructure. In drafting this amendment, Chairman
McCain and I worked to include the lessons learned and address the
common critiques from previous BRAC rounds. The amendment would use the
most recent National Military Strategy and an elevated force structure
to determine if there is any excess capacity. Any recommendations
submitted by the Secretary would have to be certified by CAPE, require
third-party validation by the GAO, provide greater transparency to
communities by publishing on the Federal Register, and any list of
closures would have to be affirmatively approved by the President and
Congress. Again, I know this is a difficult issue, but I believe we
must make difficult decisions as stewards of our Department of Defense
and taxpayers' dollars, and I look forward to the debate.
To my disappointment, the bill also includes a series of provisions
that add unnecessary redtape to successful medical research efforts
funded by the Pentagon. The program has funded research over the years.
These programs have led to new treatments for burn victims, new
transplant procedures, and rehabilitation techniques for TBI and PTSD
patients, and a score of other medical innovations. These
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs have been
independently reviewed by experts at the National Academies of Science
and found to be world class, scientifically rigorous, innovative and
effective. At a time when the President is proposing drastic and
harmful cuts to NIH's medical research budget, I do not think we should
intentionally throw bureaucratic hurdles in the way of researchers
trying to cure debilitating and life-threatening diseases. I hope we
can remove these provisions before we pass the bill.
I am also concerned about several provisions in this bill that would
weaken important protections for American defense manufacturers,
including small businesses in my State that supply advanced
technologies and systems to the military. I note that existing sourcing
laws include provisions that protect the Pentagon taxpayers from paying
unreasonable and unfair prices, and these laws serve to help protect
American jobs. We need to ensure that we have an innovative, reliable,
trusted, and secure domestic industrial base as we grow the military
and respond to contingency operations and surge production
requirements.
Finally, I would like to say a few words about the funding for
defense. The bill reported out of committee includes $610.87 billion in
discretionary spending for defense base budget requirements and $60.2
billion for Overseas Contingency Operations. It also includes $21
billion for Department of Energy-related activities, resulting in a
topline funding level of $692 billion for discretionary national
defense spending.
While many of us agree that the Department requires the resources,
these funding levels do not adhere to the spending limits mandated by
the Budget Control Act of 2011. If enacted and funded at these levels,
sequestration would be triggered, thereby wiping out about $88 billion
through across-the-board cuts. This would be a very complicated
situation. We would be giving money on one hand and taking it back

[[Page S5253]]

with the other, literally. We must come to address the insufficient
funding caps in the BCA, and we must do so for both defense and
nondefense accounts.
Since the Budget Control Act was enacted in 2011, we have made
repeated incremental changes to the discretionary budget caps for both
defense and nondefense accounts. We have done so in order to provide
some budgetary certainty to the Department of Defense and also to
domestic agencies. I believe that if defense funds are increased,
funding for domestic agencies must also be increased because they, too,
are suffering from the same severe budget that the Defense Department
has suffered over the last several years. In addition, at this point, I
think all of us acknowledge our national security is broader than
simply the accounts in the Department of Defense. It is the FBI, the
Department of Homeland Security, State Department, and many other
agencies that contribute to our national security.
In fact, in the wake of Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma, we have
seen the Centers for Disease Control dispatched, EPA individuals
dispatched to evaluate, in the Harvey situation, threats to the
environment, and in case of Irma, to try to prevent the threats by
being deployed before the storm actually struck. So our national
security, our public safety, all these issues involve not just the
Department of Defense but the whole array of government enterprise. We
understand that the well-being of our Nation--and what our men and
women in uniform are fighting for--depends on funded and functioning
domestic agencies, not just the Department of Defense. For example, as
I have said before, with these two hurricanes, tens of thousands of
Americans have needed help, these Federal agencies have come forward,
and I will mention them: the Centers for Disease Control, Environmental
Protection Agency, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal
Communications Commission, the Small Business Administration, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Social Security Administration.
Those are just a handful. Providing for the security of Americans
requires the whole of government, and it should all be funded fairly.
We should remain responsible stewards of taxpayers' money while also
ensuring we provide sufficient funds to meet the needs of our Nation.
Let me conclude by once again thanking Chairman McCain and my
colleagues for working thoughtfully and on a bipartisan basis to
develop this important piece of legislation. I would also like to thank
the staff who worked tirelessly on this bill throughout the year. I
look forward to a thoughtful debate on the issues that face our
Department of Defense and national security.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The majority leader.

Remembering Pete Domenici

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is with deep regret that I announce
to the Senate the passing of our dear friend and colleague Senator Pete
Domenici.
Pete had a long and notable career, one that took him from pitching
on the baseball diamond to teaching mathematics at an Albuquerque
junior high school, from city politics to the U.S. Senate.
In fact, when he ran for the Senate in 1972, Domenici became the
first Republican elected from his home State in nearly four decades. By
the time he retired, he did so as the longest serving Senator in New
Mexico history. Like others in this Chamber, I served for a number of
years with Senator Domenici. I came to know him as smart, hard-working,
dedicated and as a very strong advocate for his home State of New
Mexico.
We are all saddened by this news today. The Senate offers its
condolences to Senator Domenici's family and especially his wife Nancy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question occurs on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
The motion was agreed to.

____________________