[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 149 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5712-S5727]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 2810, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2810) 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.
Pending:
McCain/Reed modified amendment No. 1003, in the nature of a
substitute.
McConnell (for McCain) amendment No. 545 (to amendment No.
1003), of a perfecting nature.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from New York. I
thank him for the cooperation we have gotten in the consideration of
this important legislation.
I would just ask the Democratic leader, is it reasonable to assume
that we could finish this up today or set a time for it on Monday?
Mr. SCHUMER. Absolutely.
Mr. McCAIN. Good. I hope we can do that.
I again thank the leader from New York, who has been very cooperative
to me and to the Senator from Rhode Island as we have moved forward
with this legislation. I thank him.
Training Accident at Camp Pendleton
Mr. President, I wish to begin by offering my thoughts and prayers to
the marines who were injured yesterday when their amphibious assault
vehicle caught fire during a training exercise at Camp Pendleton in
California. With 15 marines hospitalized and 5 in critical condition, I
join all of my colleagues in hoping for a full and speedy recovery for
each of these brave young servicemembers.
Last night, unfortunately, the majority leader was required to file
cloture on the National Defense Authorization Act for 2018. We have
gotten a lot done in the short time this legislation has been on the
floor. I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that it is
my hope that we will be able to do more.
I thank my friend from Rhode Island. I thank Members who have been
very helpful and cooperative in this effort, as we have considered a
27-to-0 vote through the committee. It passed unanimously. We have
engaged in spirited, thoughtful debate, and we have ultimately adopted
277 amendments from both Republicans and Democrats.
I sound like a broken record, but this is the way the Senate should
conduct business. The authorizing committee reports out legislation
that has been examined with hearings and debate and amendments, and it
appears on the floor, and we have additional debates and amendments,
and people can vote yes or no, but they are informed.
It is a violation of our oath of office when we are told that one-
fifth of the gross national product--i.e. healthcare--is going to be
decided by a ``skinny repeal'' that none of us had seen until an hour
or two before. That is not the way the Senate should do business.
We are not perfect. We are going to have to invoke cloture on this
bill. We are not going to have some debate and votes on some very
important--at least four--issues. But while we have been on this bill,
we have adopted 277 amendments. We had hours and hours of hearings. We
had a week of putting this bill
[[Page S5713]]
together on a bipartisan basis, and it was reported out by over one-
quarter of the Senate, to zero. That is the way we should be doing
business.
I will freely admit that national security probably is at a higher
level of importance--and should be--than the average legislation, but
shouldn't we learn from this that if we sit down together, we argue, we
fight, we debate, and then we reach consensus, we come to the floor of
the Senate and to the American people with something that we are proud
of and that we can defend?
As I mentioned, there are still some issues that we are negotiating
on, back and forth--and we are negotiating--and hopefully we can get
those done before cloture is invoked. I hope the majority leader and
the Democratic leader will agree to a time certain for final passage.
Let me just say that I support beginning to move toward final
passage, which will provide our Armed Forces the resources they need.
By the way, again, I want to emphasize that on the Armed Services
Committee, we have had dozens of hearings on topics such as the global
threat environment, the effects of defense budget cuts, and military
readiness and modernization. Those hearings informed the work of the
committee as we moved toward the legislation.
I know that all of us from time to time like to take credit for
accomplishments that maybe we are not as responsible for as we would
advertise, but I want to say that I am not just proud of John McCain
and Jack Reed, I am proud of the 27 members of the Armed Services
Committee who--and the debate was spirited. It is not the Bobbsey
Twins. We fight in a spirited fashion. We defend what we believe in.
But once the committee is decided, then we move on.
So my colleagues have embraced the spirit of that process, and we
have submitted more than 500 amendments for consideration this week.
The Senator from Rhode Island and I negotiated a number of very good
amendments that have the support of both Republicans and Democrats. We
still have some hard issues that are remaining, and I will be talking
more about them. We are still negotiating to see if we can find
agreement on those, and I am guardedly optimistic we can get most of
that agreement done. We will know more later on this morning or early
this afternoon.
Let me also point out to my colleagues what we are talking about. We
have seen Navy ships, Army, and Marine Corps helicopters, Air Force
planes crashing during routine training and operations, and these
incidents have cost the lives of dozens of our men and women in
uniform. There are many reasons for these tragedies, but the one this
body cannot avoid responsibility for is that we are failing to provide
our military with the resources they need to perform the missions we
are asking of them. We are asking them to do too much with too little.
The result is an overworked, strained force with aging equipment--and
not enough of it.
We can point fingers and assign blame all we want, but at the end of
the day, the constitutional responsibility to raise moneys and maintain
Navies lies with us, with the Congress. That, of course, brings up
sequestration, which I will address later on.
I just want to point out, again, the men and women who wear the
uniform of our country are the best of our country, and they do
everything we ask of them with great courage. It is time for this body
to show a similar measure of courage and end the threat sequestration
poses to their mission and their lives.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I again thank the chairman for his
leadership. It has been critical, as has been demonstrated throughout
the process during our subcommittee hearings and our committee
hearings, but even before that, the chairman insisted upon hearings
that were comprehensive so, as we prepared for this NDAA, we had a
sense of the threats we faced, the resources we needed, and, as a
result, as the chairman pointed out, we were able to send to the floor,
with a unanimous vote, a very strong defense bill.
Since that time, working together, we have been able to incorporate
over 100 amendments which improve the bill. As the chairman pointed
out, we are still working on issues we hope we can bring forward for
either adoption or, through debate, a vote, and I hope we can do that.
Again, as the chairman pointed out, this is a rare instance of regular
order--of the committee report coming to the floor, moving to it by a
strong vote, taking up and working to get amendments that are not
controversial into the package, and then going ahead and, we hope,
setting up debate, discussion, and votes on more difficult and
challenging issues. I was encouraged by Senator Schumer's comment that
we can anticipate a date for final passage of this bill.
We are confident we will have a national defense bill leaving the
Senate and going to conference now. The final outline of that bill is
still to be determined, and I hope we can add more to it. That is a
very principled process of talking back-and-forth.
Again, I don't think any of this would have been done without the
leadership of the chairman and his insistence that we adhere not only
to regular order but that we don't forget this is ultimately about the
men and women who serve us overseas.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode Island, my dear
friend, Jack Reed, is too kind. It takes two to tango. The partnership
we have developed over the years has made it possible for us to get to
the place we have in the past and we are today. He has not only my
gratitude but that of the men and women who are serving because of his
advocacy and his leadership.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. REED. I thank the chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I first thank Senator McCain and
Senator Reed for their leadership, a model of bipartisanship at this
incredibly important time with the rest of the world and the need to
have a strong military. We know that. I think that is why we see this
bill proceeding, but this bill will be so much stronger if we make sure
that we not only defend our shores and stand by our troops but if we
also defend the security of our democracy.
I so appreciate Senator McCain and Senator Reed supporting this
amendment I have with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. This
must be included in this bill. We are having a situation where one or
two Members on the other side of the aisle are not allowing it to
proceed. The timing is critical. The 2018 election is only 400-some
days away, which is why you see us pushing this bill and doing
everything we can to get it either included in the managers' package or
to get a vote.
This amendment is supported by the Freedom Caucus, and in the House
is led by the head of the Freedom Caucus. You may ask why. There are a
lot of Republicans who would like to see States be able to keep running
their own elections. I agree with that. I like the fact that we have
decentralized elections, but the hacking was so real in this last
election that our intelligence agencies have now established there were
21 States where there were attempts made to hack into their election
software. We know this is going to happen again, and we must stand
ready. We must protect our democracy.
Instead of having a successful hack attack in this next election, why
don't we prepare ourselves so we can keep the decentralized nature of
our elections? That is why we see such broad support for this
amendment.
I came to the floor yesterday to fight for a vote--a simple up-or-
down vote--on the bipartisan Klobuchar-Graham amendment. I also thank
Senator Lankford of Oklahoma, as well as Senator Harris of California,
for their bipartisan work and support for this amendment. This
amendment has support, but one or two Members are blocking it--an
amendment which has the support of the chairman and ranking member of
the Armed Services Committee because they understand that election
security is national security.
This provision simply says that it is the policy of the United States
to defend against and respond to cyber attacks on our democratic
system. You
[[Page S5714]]
have to have your head in the sand if you don't know that this has been
a problem, whether you are in business and have had information stolen,
whether you are someone who has been scammed or have had stuff sent to
you on your email, or whether you are a voter who is concerned simply
that when you are exercising your freedom to vote, someone is going to
come in and steal your own private information or--worse yet--change
what you did and change the result of an election.
In the words of Bruce Fein, a former Reagan official, ``Passing the
Klobuchar-Graham amendment is imperative because public confidence in
the reliability of elections is a cornerstone of national security.''
I am stunned we weren't simply able to include this amendment. I
still have hope that we can. I am here to fight for this amendment so
vigorously today because we need to get this done now. We need to get
the authorization done now so we can start the process of putting
grants out to States so they can upgrade their election equipment, have
backup paper ballots, and simply employ the best practices that we
believe we need to protect ourselves from the perpetrators in Russia or
in any other foreign entity.
We need to make sure our election equipment in every big city and in
every small town in America, in every county is as sophisticated as the
bad guys who are trying to break into it. That is all this is about. I
don't think anyone can go home to their constituents and say they
blocked this. How on Earth can we pass a bill which authorizes billions
of dollars in spending and refuses to simply authorize a relatively
smaller amount of money to upgrade our election equipment?
Predictions are that this would cost about the same amount of money
we spend on military bands every year--bands--music bands. I love
military bands. There is nothing I like better, and I want to keep our
military bands strong, but all Senator Graham and I are saying is, I
think maybe the protection of our entire election--guaranteeing the
freedom of Americans to pick the candidate they choose, whether
Republican or Democratic or Independent--is just as important as the
music they hear celebrating our democracy. You can't have music
celebrating our democracy if you don't have a fair democracy.
U.S. national securities have been sounding the alarm that our voting
systems will continue to be a target in the future. The idea that we
would pass the Defense authorization bill and not address this threat
is mind-boggling. It is literally congressional malpractice.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, now run by the
Trump administration, Russian hackers attempted to hack at least 21
States' election systems in 2016. Earlier this year, we also learned
that Russia launched cyber attacks against a U.S. voting software
company and the emails of more than 100 local election officials.
The former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, recently
testified that Russia will continue to interfere in our political
system. This is what he said:
I believe Russia is now emboldened to continue such
activities in the future both here and around the world, and
to do so even more intensely. If there has ever been a
clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the
very foundation of our democratic political system, this
episode is it.
Vigilance, that is what we need right now. This is not about one
party or the other. I think Senator Rubio said it best when he said,
well, one election it might affect one party and one candidate; the
next election, it is going to affect the other. No one has any idea,
when you are dealing with outside foreign entities that are trying to
interfere with our democracy and trying to bring down our democracy in
the eyes of the world--you don't know who they are going to affect. You
just know they are trying to do it. So what do we do? We put in the
necessary money in the Defense Authorization Act, an authorization for
that to stop this from happening.
In order to safeguard future elections, State and local officials
must have the tools and resources they need to prevent hacks and
safeguard election infrastructure. They don't need those resources in 2
years. They don't need us debating this for 3 years. They need these
resources now. Ask the secretaries of States--Democratic and
Republican--who are supporting this bill all over the country, ask the
local election officials, and they will tell you they need it now.
The next Federal election in 2018 is just 419 days away. As we know,
it takes time for them to plan, it takes time for them to get the right
equipment, and it takes time for them to get the information from cyber
experts to make sure whether their systems are secure.
Experts agree that if we want to improve cyber security ahead of the
2018 election, we must act now. That is why I am fighting so hard for
this amendment. I don't think we can just wait around and see if there
is another bill we can attach it to next summer. No, that will not
work. In order to protect our election systems, we need to do three
things.
First, we must bring State and local election officials, cyber
security experts, and national security personnel together to provide
guidance on how States can best protect themselves. These
recommendations should be easily accessible so every information
officer and election official in every small town can access them. As
we know, a lot of the States themselves still don't have full
information about the hacking in the 21 States. That is a problem.
Many State officials I have talked to say they are still in the dark
about threats to their election systems. That can't continue. We need
our national security officials to be sharing information about the
potential for attacks--not the day before the election, when they can't
do anything, when they have a system that doesn't have paper ballot
backups. No, they need that information now, and we need to help them
not just get that information but make the changes they need. This
means creating a framework for information sharing, which acts as an
alarm system against cyber intruders. Our amendment would simply
establish that alarm system.
Second, the Federal Government must provide States with the resources
to implement the best practices developed by States and cyber security
experts. A meaningful effort to protect our election systems will
require those resources. As I mentioned before, predictions are that it
is about the same amount of money that we spend every year on military
bands. I think that is a bargain when you are looking to protect our
democracy.
I think most Americans would agree with me--Republicans or Democrats,
which is why there is such widespread support for this amendment--when
I say that protecting our democracy from foreign cyber attacks and
letting Americans have the freedom to decide who they want to elect,
instead of someone in Russia, are probably money well spent.
Finally, we need better auditing of our elections. That means voter-
verified paper ballot backup systems in every State. That is
fundamental to protecting our elections and improving public confidence
in the reliability of elections. Our amendment would accelerate the
move to paper ballots by providing States with the resources they need
to get there. The vast majority of our States simply don't have that
system in place.
In short, our amendment would help States block cyber attacks, secure
voter registration logs and voter data so that people don't get their
addresses in the hands of a foreign government--or maybe even the data
on whom they voted for or what party they belong to--upgrade auditing
election procedures, and create secure and useful information sharing
about threats.
I am not alone in this fight. As I mentioned, Senators Graham,
Lankford, and Harris are also pushing for the Senate to do its job and
include this provision. Representative Meadows, the leader of the House
Freedom Caucus, and Democratic Congressman Jim Langevin have introduced
companion legislation in the House.
Again, why is the Freedom Caucus strongly behind this bill? They are
behind this bill because they want to preserve States' elections. They
want to preserve the rights of States to have their own elections, and
they are concerned enough because they have looked at the intelligence
reports and have seen that this next election could blow it all up.
[[Page S5715]]
Are we just going to look back at it then? People who are holding
this up, whose names will be revealed--are they then going to say
``Oops, I guess we made a mistake''?
No, it is going to be on their hands. It is going to be on their
hands. This is the moment to do it.
I repeat: We need to get the authorization in place, so we can get
the grant money out to the States so that they can upgrade their
election equipment.
Dozens of former Republican national security officials are pushing
for the Senate to pass this amendment. They have written op-eds, called
their representatives, and worked to inform the public about the need
to take action now.
Michael Chertoff, who served as Secretary of Homeland Security under
President George W. Bush, published a piece this month in the Wall
Street Journal, calling on Congress to take action and pass the
Klobuchar-Graham amendment. He noted that our amendment would address
the cyber security challenge in a way that is ``fiscally responsible,
respectful of states' policy-making powers, and proactive in dealing
with the most pressing vulnerabilities.''
As I noted, Bruce Fein, a Reagan Department of Justice official,
said: ``The amendment would enormously strengthen defenses against
cyber-attacks that could compromise the integrity of elections in the
United States and undermine legitimacy of government.''
A bipartisan group of former national security officials sent a
letter to Senate leadership pushing for a vote on this amendment. They
noted that attacks on U.S. voting systems threatened the most basic
underpinnings of American self-government. These attacks are growing in
sophistication and scale.
As we all know, States administer elections. If you talk to the local
election officials--call any of them up--you will find that they are
adamant about protecting States' rights in this area.
We want to help them. A bipartisan group of 10 Secretaries of State
sent a letter urging the Senate to pass this amendment. They want this
amendment to pass because it would provide vital resources.
How do you truly expect someone in a town of 1,000 people to be up on
the latest cyber security attacks from some sophisticated hackers in a
warehouse in Russia? Really? I don't think so. That is why we want to
keep the decentralized nature of our elections. In some ways, one, we
like it; two, it gives us protection because it is not all in one
system. We know we have to realize that in these small towns and in
these rural areas, they are not going to have the updated,
sophisticated cyber security protection equipment unless we tell them
how they can do it and give them help to get there.
The National Association of Counties, a group that unites America's
3,069 counties, also endorses this amendment. Why? Because in our
country, most of our elections are run by county officials.
As I noted, our decentralized system is both a strength and a
weakness--a strength because we have multiple systems, so all of our
information isn't in one place. American elections are increasingly an
easy target because many local election systems are using election
technology that is completely outdated.
A survey of 274 election administrators in 28 States found that most
said their systems need upgrades. Forty-three States rely on electronic
voting or tabulation systems that are at least 10 years old. Whoa. Do
you think the Russians and those other foreign entities that want to
mess up with our democracy are not aware that this equipment is 10
years old? I am not telling them anything new right now. Of course they
are aware of it.
What are we doing? We are letting people in these small towns in
Alaska or in Iowa sit there and wait to see if it happens. Guess what.
If they get into one locality or if they get into one State, do you
think that doesn't undermine the integrity of our whole democracy in
our country? Of course it does.
Local election officials who are passionate about keeping the Federal
Government out of State elections support our amendment because it
strikes the balance that our Federal system demands when it comes to
the administration of elections.
As I said, despite the strong bipartisan support for this amendment--
the strong support and leadership of the Freedom Caucus--there are
Members of this body who are still blocking a vote. They happen not to
be on my side of the aisle, so I implore my friends the other side of
the aisle to figure this out and let this either be included in the
managers' package or come up for a vote where I know it would pass.
Republican and Democratic Senators support this amendment. Cyber
security experts support this amendment. Republican and Democratic
former national security officials support this amendment. State and
local officials support this amendment.
I ask you, why is this not included? We don't have an answer.
Actually, there is no good answer, except for a bunch of procedural
gobbledygook, which, of course, if it had gone through the regular
order and had been allowed a hearing--which it was not--then we would
have had a hearing. We were blocked from having a hearing. Now, as is
my right, I am bringing this before this body.
The integrity of our election system is the cornerstone of our
democracy. The freedom to choose our leaders and know with full
confidence those leaders were chosen in free and fair elections--that
is something Americans have fought and died for since our country was
founded.
Obstructing efforts to improve election security is an insult to
everyone who has fought for freedom and those who work every day to
protect our democracy. Members standing in the way of this bipartisan
amendment to protect our election infrastructure are literally
committing democracy malpractice.
Our attitude must be to roll up our sleeves to get this done. The
American people deserve nothing less.
I see my friend Senator McCain is on the floor. Again, I appreciate
his support and his and Senator Reed's work, not only on this bill but
their work to try to include this amendment in the package.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota. She
has been an advocate on this issue for a number of years. Obviously, as
she stated with some articulation, we are talking about the fundamental
of democracy, and the threat to it has probably never been greater.
She also understands there is an issue of germaneness and committees
of responsibility and all that, but I want to tell the Senator from
Minnesota that I appreciate her advocacy. This issue is not going away.
I look forward to continuing to work with her because this is really--
it may be in some ways one of the greatest threats to democracy we have
faced, and I know she has been an advocate on this issue for a number
of years. I thank her.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Portman and Warner be added as cosponsors to the Reed amendment No.
939, relating to a strategy for countering malign Russian influence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to turn to discuss my amendment
to counter malign Russian influence.
Amendment No. 939, sponsored by Senators McCain, Portman, Cardin,
Brown, Warner, Whitehouse, Durbin, and myself, would advance U.S.
national security interests by requiring the President to submit to
Congress a strategy for countering the threat of Russia's influence
activities intended to undermine democracy in the United States,
Europe, and across the world and to disrupt the global international
order.
The amendment would require the President to provide Congress a
strategy that is comprehensive, using every tool at our disposal to
counter Russia's malign activities. The strategy would direct actions
across the whole of government, including the following areas: security
measures, the strategy would include actions to counter Russian hybrid
warfare operations, building the capabilities of allies and partners to
identify, attribute, and respond to Russian malign activities, short of
conflict, and supporting the NATO alliance
[[Page S5716]]
and other security partnerships against Russian aggression; on
information operations--the strategy would seek to counter Russia's use
of disinformation and propaganda in social media as well as traditional
media and to strengthen interagency mechanisms for coordinating and
effectively implementing a whole-of-government response to Russian
active measures; in the area of cyber, the strategy would require steps
to defend against, deter, and when necessary respond to malicious cyber
activities by the Kremlin, including the use of offensive cyber
capabilities consistent with policies specified elsewhere in the act;
in the political and diplomatic arenas, the strategy would be required
to set out actions to enhance the resilience of U.S. democratic
institutions and infrastructure and to work with countries vulnerable
to malign Russian influence to promote good governance and strengthen
democracy abroad; in the area of financial measures, the strategy would
address the corrupt and illicit Russian financial networks in the
United States and abroad that have facilitated and Russia's malign
influence; and finally, on energy security, the strategy would include
steps to promote the energy security of our European allies and
partners, reducing Russia's ability to use energy dependence as a
weapon of coercion or influence.
The amendment would also require that the administration's strategy
be consistent with prior legislation relating to Russia's malign
activities, including the Russian Sanctions Act that recently passed
with overwhelming support in Congress; the Ukraine Freedom Support Act
of 2014, and the Magnitsky Act of 2012. This amendment would fill an
important gap in our current approach to relations with Russia. To
date, the Trump administration has been unwilling, for whatever reason,
to articulate and implement an appropriate response to the threat to
our democratic institutions and security posed by Russia's malign
influence activities. This amendment would address this critical
national security requirement.
It is both appropriate and critically important that this requirement
for a strategy to counter Russian malign influence be amended to the
National Defense Authorization Act because ultimately this is
fundamentally an issue of national security. The administration's
failure to acknowledge the insidious interference by Vladimir Putin and
his cronies for what it really is--an attack by a foreign adversary on
Western democracies and the institutions underpinning the global
order--has real implications to our national security. The
administration's lack of action to counter this malign influence only
encourages the Kremlin to continue its aggression against the United
States and its allies and partners.
The Russians know they cannot win in a conventional war, so they have
adapted their tactics asymmetrically to leverage their strengths. These
tactics pose a real threat, and we need to appropriately posture
ourselves, using all tools of statecraft, to counter Russian malign
influence.
Before President Obama left office, he ordered an intelligence review
of Russian interference in U.S. elections.
On January 6, the U.S. intelligence community released a report on
its findings on Russian interference in our democracy. This report
included the consensus view of all 17 intelligence agencies, including
the CIA, the National Security Agency, the FBI, and the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence. Among the key findings were
President Putin ``ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the
U.S. presidential election''; ``Russia's goals were to undermine public
faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and
harm her electability and potential presidency''; ``Russia's influence
campaign was multifaceted, combining old-fashion Russian propaganda
techniques with cyber espionage against U.S. political organizations
and mass disclosure of government and private data:; ``Russian
intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US
state or local electoral boards''; and ``Russia's state-run propaganda
machine contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform
for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.''
These findings were made public on January 6--over 8 months ago--with
the additional warning from our intelligence experts that ``Moscow will
apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US
presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including
against US allies and their election processes.''
Furthermore, with each passing week more evidence comes to light
about the depths to which the Kremlin went to interfere with our
democracy.
Just last week, we learned that a Kremlin-linked troll factory bought
$100,000 worth of Facebook ads which were further disseminated through
bot networks as part of Russia's attempt to influence our 2016
Presidential election. The ads traced back to 470 fake accounts and
pages on Facebook and mostly focused on pushing politically divisive
issues such as gun rights, immigration, LBGT rights, and racial
discrimination. Further reporting by the New York Times laid out in
lurid detail how these fake accounts amplified other tactics of Russian
malign influence and ginned up web traffic to DCLeaks--the site where
Russian military intelligence first posted hacked emails.
The New York Times also reported that hundreds or thousands of fake
Twitter accounts regularly posted anti-Clinton messages and used
Twitter to draw attention to hacked materials during last year's
campaign. Cybersecurity firm Fireye concluded that many of these
Twitter accounts were associated with one another and linked back to
Russian military intelligence.
This is just one tactic of influence that Russia is using as part of
the wide ranging campaign it is waging against us.
Again and again, Russia has used the range of coercive tools at its
disposal--including political pressure; economic manipulation;
collaboration with corrupt local networks; propaganda, deception and
denials; and, increasingly, military force--to try to intimidate
democratic countries and undermine the further integration of NATO, the
European Union, and other Western institutions.
It is clear that we need a strategy and we need it soon; yet what is
surprising and disturbing is that the White House has failed to direct
that a plan be developed to counter this Russian malign threat and to
prepare our country for renewed Russian interference in the upcoming
2018 and 2020 elections. Time is running out.
We are now 8 months into the Trump administration.
During this time, numerous administration officials have publicly
reinforced the findings of the intelligence community's January
assessment of the threat posed by Russia's malign influence activities.
On May 11, Director of Central Intelligence Mike Pompeo said he hoped
that we learn from Russian activity in the 2016 election and be able to
more effectively defeat it.
On May 14, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, ``I don't think
there's any question that the Russians were playing around in our
electoral processes.''
On May 23, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats stated,
``There clearly is a consensus that Russia has meddled in our election
process . . . Russia's always been doing these kind of things with
influence campaigns but they're doing it much more sophisticated
through the use of cyber and other techniques than they did before.''
On June 13, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis stated, ``We're
recognizing the strategic threat that Russia is provided by its
misbehavior.''
On July 9, 2017, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley stated, ``Everybody
knows that [the Russians] are not just meddling in the United States'
election. They're doing this across multiple continents, and they're
doing this in a way that they're trying to cause chaos within the
countries.''
On August 5, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster described the
threat from Russia ``as a very sophisticated campaign of subversion and
disinformation and--and propaganda that is ongoing every day in an
effort to break apart Europe and to pit political groups against each
other to sow dissension . . . and conspiracy theories.''
Yet, despite the assessment from the intelligence community and these
acknowledgements from the President's
[[Page S5717]]
own national security team that Russian malign influence and
interference in our 2016 election and the elections of our close allies
in Europe pose a national security threat, the President has yet to
direct that actions be taken to counter Russian malign influence. As
far as we know, the Oval Office has not ordered the national security
team even to formulate a strategy to address these pressing threats
from Putin and his cronies. Time is running out.
In fact, 8 months in, and despite the assessments of his Cabinet, the
President can't even clearly admit that the threat is coming from
Russia.
On January 11, President Trump stated, ``As far as hacking, I think
it was Russia. But I think we also get hacked by other countries and
other people.''
On April 30, President Trump said, ``It's very hard to say who did
the hacking . . . I'll go along with Russia. Could've been China,
could've been a lot of different groups.''
On May 11, President Trump said, ``If Russia or anybody else is
trying to interfere with our elections, I think it's a horrible thing
and I want to get to the bottom of it.''
On July 6, just prior to his meeting with President Putin, President
Trump said, ``It could have very well been Russia but it could well
have been other countries and I won't be specific but I think a lot of
people interfered. Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure.''
Let's stop and think about that for a minute. ``No one really knows
for sure''? That this is even a question runs completely counter to the
informed assessments of the entire intelligence community and the
President's own national security team. It is time President Trump
admits what the rest of us know to be true.
We also know, from multiple administration officials' testimony to
Congress, that the President has not directed his Cabinet or senior
staff to work on a strategy.
On May 11, when our colleague and vice chairman of the Intelligence
Committee Senator Warner asked DNI Coats where we stand in terms of
preparation against a future Russian attack, he couldn't think of a
single thing. He replied, ``Relative to a grand [Russia] strategy, I am
not aware right now of any--I think we're still assessing the impact.''
On June 8, when our colleague Senator Heinrich asked whether the
President had inquired about what the FBI Director, our government, or
the intelligence community should be doing to protect America against
Russian interference in our election system, former FBI director James
Comey stated, ``I don't recall a conversation like that.''
When I asked Defense Secretary Mattis on June 13 whether the
President had directed him to begin intensive planning to protect our
electoral system against the next Russian cyber attack, he was not able
to point to any guidance indicating that the President recognizes the
urgency of the Russian threat or the necessity of preparing to counter
it next year during the midterm elections.
On June 21, officials from the Department of Homeland Security
testified that 21 States were potentially targeted by Russian
Government linked hackers in advance of the 2016 Presidential election.
When I asked these officials whether the President had directed them to
come up with a plan to protect our critical elections infrastructure,
they also responded no.
On June 28, Representative Sherman asked U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.
Nikki Haley whether she had even talked to the President about Russian
interference in the 2016 Presidential election. She replied that she
had not talked to the President about the subject.
On July 7, in a press conference at the G-8 summit after the
President's meeting with President Putin, Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson stated, ``I think the relationship [with Russia]--and the
President made this clear as well--is too important, and it's too
important not to find a way to move forward.''
It is long past the point where anyone can deny that Russia
interfered in our election and the elections of our allies and partners
in Europe. This should have been a priority on day 1.
We need to formulate a strategy and take action across the whole of
government to counter the threat from Russia.
We cannot just ignore this problem or sweep Kremlin attacks on our
elections and those of our close European allies under the rug and move
forward. We need a strategy to counter Russian malign influence that
leverages all our tools of power across the government.
Though President Trump may be unwilling to confront or condemn
Russian interference in our democracy, we in Congress have been willing
and able to take a stand to put pressure on Russia and push back
against Russian malign influence.
As you are all aware, we took an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 98-2
this summer and passed long-overdue Russian sanctions. That was an
important first step, but more must be done. We must act because the
Trump administration has refused.
I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Members from both sides
of the aisle in sponsoring this amendment. As former FBI director James
Comey said when he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee,
``It's not a Republican thing or Democratic thing. It really is an
American thing. They're going to come for whatever party they choose to
try and work on behalf of . . . They're just about their own advantage.
And they will be back.''
This amendment will ensure the administration does take appropriate
action. It will direct the President to formulate a comprehensive
strategy to ensure that, when Putin and his minions come back in 2018
and 2020, we will have appropriate measures in place to detect, deter,
and counter this serious threat to our democracy.
I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this important and
necessary amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, throughout my time as a Senator, I have
heard our Service Chiefs testify time and again to the hollowing of
America's military as a result of insufficient and unpredictable
funding. Simultaneously, external dangers have grown in size and scope.
Sadly, for the first time in decades, we are forced to confront not
one but multiple existential threats to the American way of life. An
expressive Russia, expanding China, nuclear North Korea, nefarious
Iran, and relentless global terror networks put our lives and the lives
of future generations at risk.
America is once again in crisis. Inaction, obstruction, or partial
commitment are not options. This year's National Defense Authorization
Act provides us an opportunity to fulfill our duty--to provide
America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and guardsmen the tools
they need to accomplish all we demand.
I find it particularly fitting that this bill came to the floor the
week of September 11, an anniversary of unparalleled adversity but also
one of national unity. On that day, and the days that followed 16 years
ago, the best of America eclipsed the evil of terror. We came together
for the sake of our security, demonstrating to the world America's
resilience.
There is no greater symbol of that resilience than those who serve in
uniform. Secretary Mattis reminded us of that on Monday when he said:
``The men and women of America's armed forces have signed a blank check
to protect the American people and to defend the constitution, a check
payable with their lives.''
The least the Senate can do in return is authorize and prioritize
congressional efforts to keep faith with that promise. At the same
time, we are under no obligation to fund overbudget, behind-timeline
defense programs with a blank check of their own. To the contrary, we
have an oversight obligation to the American taxpayers, those in and
out of uniform, to ensure proper stewardship of their hard-earned
dollars.
That is why I, along with my colleagues on the Armed Services
Committee, crafted and passed unanimously the bill before you. In it,
we have prescribed a clear and comprehensive plan to rebuild our
military to decisively deter or defeat any adversary. However, we are
also holding the Department accountable for each dollar it spends.
For my part, as a member of the Armed Services Committee and chair
[[Page S5718]]
of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, I focused on
three priorities.
First, I supported our troops and their families by making senior
enlisted pay scales commensurate with job requirements, by combating
sexual assault and retaliation, and by facilitating Federal direct
hiring authority for military spouses. I extended that support to the
battlefield by promoting enhanced standards for things like parachutes,
aircraft life support systems, and counterdrone technologies.
Second, I advanced policy initiatives to increase cooperation with
international partners, to codify a more comprehensive counterterror
strategy, and to reaffirm America's support for our European friends by
putting Russia on notice for its aggression in Ukraine and Crimea.
Finally, I included measures to optimize existing institutions, such
as our National Guard's cyber capabilities, and to ease regulatory
burdens, so the best ideas and products from our universities and
private companies can bolster national security at a lower cost. I have
led important efforts to hold DOD accountable by requiring enhanced
program management standards and by joining Senators Grassley and
Perdue in demanding that the Department finally meet its 26-year
overdue statutory obligation to complete a clean audit.
Colleagues, let's be clear--no one wants America's military to be our
first or only option, but we must also acknowledge this truth: It is
fundamental to our security that a ready military remains an option.
The fiscal year 2018 NDAA is a vital step toward providing that
security. Seeing it through to fruition as part of a larger effort to
reassert our ``power of the purse'' is the next step. There will be
time to debate nondefense policies and budgets later, and as
legislators, our job is to have these very debates.
Let's take the first step now. I urge all of my colleagues to support
the NDAA. Follow through in the months ahead. Fulfill our obligation to
realize its goal. We can do no less.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, each year the Department of Defense funds
billions of dollars in military-relevant medical research--research
that offers our servicemembers concrete treatments for the particular
diseases and afflictions that impact them the most, research that
offers families hope, research that improves lives, and research that
saves lives.
Last summer, during consideration of the fiscal year 2017 Defense
Authorization Act, there was a question as to whether Congress would
permit this lifesaving research to continue or whether instead we would
wrap it up in so much redtape that it would basically go away.
I was proud that this Senate Chamber, on a bipartisan basis, voted
resoundingly to continue medical research in the Department of Defense
by a vote 66 to 32. It was an important, bipartisan vote, especially in
a Senate where we have a difficult time finding common ground. When it
came to medical research in the Department of Defense for members of
the military and their families, we said unequivocally that we are
committed to it on a bipartisan basis. I was proud to lead that fight,
along with Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, a Republican, to protect
defense medical research. Altogether, 40 of my Republican and
Democratic colleagues co sponsored our effort.
That vote was not just a vote for medical research, it was a vote for
the men and women in the military and their families. The vote
recognized that right now, we are closer than ever to finding cures for
dreaded diseases like cancer; closer than ever to understanding how to
delay the onset of neurological diseases like Alzheimer's and
Parkinson's; closer than ever to developing a universal flu vaccine.
That vote recognized that now is the time to be ramping up our
investment in medical research, not scaling it back. The Senate spoke,
but unfortunately it didn't end the debate.
This year, the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act
now pending on the floor of the Senate repeats last year's research-
killing provisions and, for inexplicable reasons, adds two more. Just
like last year, these provisions in the bill pending on the floor of
the Senate would effectively end the Department of Defense medical
research program. Like last year, these provisions wrapped this
research in more redtape than you could possibly explain. And we face
the prospect for the second year in a row of the end of this critical,
lifesaving medical research.
These provisions are dangerous, and by cutting medical research, they
will cost lives--the lives of our military and their families. So I
filed a bipartisan amendment, along with 53 additional cosponsors and
my lead cosponsor, Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, to remove
these provisions from this Defense authorization bill so that
lifesaving research can continue.
The underlying Defense authorization bill has four provisions that,
if enacted, will end the DOD's research.
The first provision, section 733, would require the Secretary of
Defense to certify that each medical research grant awarded is
``designed to directly protect, enhance or restore the health and
safety of members of the Armed Forces''--not veterans, not retirees,
not the spouses of military members, not the children of military
members.
To make matters worse, after the Secretary makes this certification
in writing to the Armed Services Committee, the Defense Department is
then required to wait 90 days before awarding the grant. It is not only
redtape, it is built-in delay.
In my view, veterans, retirees, and spouses and children of
servicemembers are all vital members of the Department of Defense's
military community. They use the Department of Defense healthcare
system. They deserve to be counted. When a member of the military
deploys, the family deploys, and we ought to stand by all of them.
The second provision, section 891, requires that medical research
grant applicants meet the same accounting and pricing standards that
DOD requires of procurement contracts. That sounds simple enough,
doesn't it? But these are regulations that private companies have to
meet to sell the Department of Defense goods and services, like weapon
systems and equipment.
The third provision, section 892, changes the ground rules for how to
handle the technical data generated by this research--information
related to clinical trials and manufacturing processes. How does this
bill change it? This should sound familiar: by wiping away the existing
regulations and imposing overly burdensome and unappealing regulations
that would scare off research partners.
I am sympathetic to what this section may be attempting to do. In the
face of ever-increasing prescription drug costs, it does make sense for
the Federal Government to have more rights when it comes to products
and treatments developed with Federal taxpayer dollars. However, we
must be more strategic about how to approach this. I look forward to
working across the aisle on ways to beef up the government's role in
helping to keep drug costs down, especially for products that would not
have been possible without Federal investments.
The fourth provision, section 893, requires the Defense Contract
Audit Agency to conduct audits on each grant recipient.
For those who aren't familiar with this audit agency, it is currently
backlogged with tens of billions of dollars' worth of procurement
contracts that it has to audit. This provision in the bill would add to
this pile, requiring it to conduct an additional 800 audits per month
on medical research grants--more redtape; no real reason.
Taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent, and the
existing system does that. The grant application must show that the
research is relevant to the military. No grant makes it through the
first round without showing clear military relevance. If an applicant
fails this test, that is the end of the story. If they clear the
hurdle, then they are subjected to a long list of critical defense
researchers
[[Page S5719]]
and issue experts in the disease in question to ensure that their
research proposal is worth the investment. But that is not it.
Representatives from the National Institutes of Health and the
Department of Veterans Affairs also have input at that point to make
sure it doesn't duplicate any existing research. These rules are in
place to protect taxpayer dollars, and they work.
This year's Defense authorization attempts to add redtape to the
program in the name of protecting it but in reality ends it. Simply
put, these provisions would strangle the Department of Defense medical
research program in suffocating redtape. Don't take my word for it. The
Coalition for National Security Research, representing a broad-based
coalition of research universities and institutes, said:
[These sections] could jeopardize funding for research
activities that have broader relevance to U.S. military,
including the health and wellbeing of military families and
veterans, and the efficiency of the military healthcare
system.
We asked the Department of Defense how the new system proposed in
this bill would work. Here is their analysis:
This language would, in essence, eliminate military family
and military retiree relevant medical research, inhibit
military medical training programs, and impact future health
care cost avoidance. Impacts will take place across all
areas. . . . [Researchers] would most likely not want to do
business with the DOD. . . . [The provisions] may create a
chilling effect on potential awardees of DOD assistance
agreements.
A ``chilling effect'' on medical research--is that what we want to go
on the record to vote for with this bill? Is that what the Senate
wants? Is that what we want to say to members of the military, their
families, and retirees? I don't think so.
These provisions are simply put in the bill to erect roadblocks to
critical, important medical research.
Let's talk for a minute about the medical research funded by DOD, the
real-world impact.
Since fiscal year 1992, the Congressionally Directed Medical Research
Programs has invested almost $12 billion in innovative medical
research. This medical research command determines the appropriate
research strategy, filling research gaps, and creates a public-private
partnership between the Federal Government, private universities, and
those who desperately need this research.
In 2004, the Institute of Medicine, an independent organization,
looked at the medical research program that I have discussed, and what
did they find? ``The CDMRP has shown that it has been an efficiently
managed and scientifically productive effort.'' That is a pretty solid
endorsement of $12 billion worth of medical research. They found that
this program ``concentrates its resources on research mechanisms that
complement rather than duplicate the research approaches of major
funders of medical research in the United States, such as the National
Institutes of Health.'' They also found that ``the program appears to
be well-run, supports high-quality research, and contributes to
research progress.''
The Institute of Medicine also reviewed the program in 2016. This was
their conclusion just last summer about the same program:
CDMRP is a well-established medical research funding
organization, covering many health conditions of concern to
members of the military and veterans, their families, and the
general public. . . . In general--
And this is highlighted--
the committee found CDMRP processes for reviewing and
selecting applications for funding to be effective in
allocating funds for each research program.
This program has been closely vetted, as it should be. It is a matter
of medical research critical to members of the military and their
families. It is a matter of life and death. It is a matter of the
integrity of spending taxpayers' dollars. It is a good program, a solid
program. It has not been wrought with scandal. There is no reason for
us to turn it upside down or to turn the lights out in the offices of
these researchers.
The Institute of Medicine had this right. We have real results to
back up the way we feel about this. What areas have they embarked on
with critical successful research? One of the greatest success stories
of this program is advances we have made in breast cancer treatment. In
1993, the Department of Defense awarded Dr. Dennis Slamon two grants
totaling $1.7 million for a tumor tissue bank to study breast cancer.
He began his work several years earlier with funding from the National
Cancer Institute. The DOD kicked in to help.
Dr. Slamon's DOD-funded work helped to develop Herceptin, which is
now FDA approved, one of the most widely used drugs to fight breast
cancer. This research has not only saved the lives of countless women
in the military, but it has had application far beyond the military.
The same thing is true when it comes to prostate cancer and Parkinson's
disease. What we found over and over is that money invested in this
program for medical research is money well spent. Why, then, would we
bury this program in redtape?
I am happy that some 54 or 55 Senators from both sides of the aisle
are going to stand with me, and I see I have other colleagues preparing
to speak. I will return to speak more specifically about the programs
of this agency.
Is there a person in this country who believes that America is
spending too much money on medical research? Well, perhaps there is,
but I haven't met them. What I have found over and over is that Members
of both political parties are committed to medical research. The
Department of Defense does a great job with the resources given to
them.
Let's continue this program as a salute to our men and women in the
military, their families, and our veterans.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me state the bottom line up front.
This year's NDAA, once again, focuses medical research dollars on the
needs of servicemembers and military veterans, and it increases
transparency on how these taxpayer funds are being spent.
The amendment of the Senator from Illinois would take hundreds of
millions of dollars away from defense needs to spend it on research
activities totally unrelated to the mission of the military and shield
these activities from critical oversight by the Department and the
Congress.
Let me state this up front: If these medical research dollars were
invested in the proper branch of government, I would be one of its
strongest supporters. What we are seeing here--what we see so often--is
the Willie Sutton syndrome. They asked Willie Sutton: Why do you rob
banks? He said: That is where the money is.
Why do you think medical research for autism, spinal cord injury,
prosthetics, or many others have nothing to do with defense? Let's take
it out. Let's appropriate the right amount of money to the right branch
of government. So while we are watching the defense dollars--thanks to
sequestration--going down over the last 20 years, Congress has provided
more than $11.7 billion in medical research.
According to--what is aptly named over in Defense--the
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs, 12 out of 28
current research programs do not mention the military, combat, or
servicemembers and their official mission or vision statements.
So let me repeat this for the benefit of my colleagues. Spending on
medical research at the Department of Defense, nearly 15 percent of
which has nothing to do with the military, has grown 4,000 percent
since 1992--4,000 percent. So in the meantime, the Budget Control Act
is constraining the DOD budget. It has done great harm to our military.
Every single service chief and combatant commander over the last 5
years has testified to the Armed Services Committee that the budget
caps imposed by BCA have hurt our military readiness and have made it
more difficult to respond to the Nation's growing threats. Yet, during
this time of severe defense budget restrictions, funding for the
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs has nearly doubled.
Is that our priority?
I suggest to the Senator from Illinois: Why don't you go to the right
place in the appropriations bill and allocate research funds there? Why
don't you do that? You are not going there because it is the Willie
Sutton syndrome.
What you are doing is you are taking away from the men and women
serving
[[Page S5720]]
in the military what they need to defend this Nation.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCAIN. No, I will not yield.
The fact is that we have now had a rash of fatal accidents in the
military--10 from the USS McCain and 17 more. We now have many more
accidents due to the lack of readiness, training, and maintenance than
we do in combat. So what do we do? Do we stop cutting the military? No,
we add $11.7 billion for medical research.
I am for medical research. I know of no one who opposes medical
research, but do we take it out of defense? This is the directed
spending on medical research at the Department of Defense.
You may see that in 1992 it was a small amount of money for breast
cancer research. Like other government programs, it has grown and grown
and grown. If you will take a look at the pink side here, you will see
that what also has grown is those programs that have no relevance to
the military. I want to say it one more time. No, I will say it again
and again and again. If the Senator from Illinois wants this money
spent for medical research, then, take it out of the right place. Don't
be Willie Sutton. Take it from where it belongs, instead of taking
it from the men and women in the military who are undermanned,
undertrained, underequipped, and in harm's way.
So you have a choice here, my dear friends. Yes, who could be against
medical research? Nobody who I know. But who could be in favor of
taking money from the men and women and their training, equipment, and
readiness, when every single service chief has testified before the
Armed Services Committee that we are putting the lives of men and women
serving in the military at greater risk? So we are going to see these
billions of dollars taken out of defending the Nation and the arms, the
training, and the equipment that the men and women in the military
need.
Now, if the Senator from Illinois wants to fund those that are
militarily relevant, I would be glad to go along with that, but see
what has grown and grown and grown from 1992, when it was $25 million.
Now it is billions of dollars. Let's see. Funding has increased by
4,000 percent from $25 million in 1992 to over $1 billion last year.
Spending on medical research--nearly 50 percent of which has nothing
to do with the military--has grown 4,000 percent since 1992. So let's
not say that we are shorting the men and women in the military when
that spending has increased by 4,000 percent.
Again, I would like every one of my colleagues to listen to the
leaders of our military and to the men and women who are serving. They
don't have enough training. They don't have enough equipment. They are
not ready, and it is being reflected in these kinds of accidents where
we are killing more members of the military in training than we are in
combat, and every one of the service chiefs will tell you that it is
because of lack of funding for training and readiness and maintenance.
This has to stop.
The NDAA this year prohibits the Secretary of Defense and the service
Secretaries from funding or conducting a medical research and
development project unless they certify that the project would protect,
enhance, or restore the health and safety of members of the Armed
Forces. Is that an outrageous requirement that we should spend tax
dollars that are for defense that would actually be used for defense?
Wouldn't that be outrageous?
So it requires that medical research projects are open to competition
and comply with other DOD, or Department of Defense, cost accounting
standards. So we are not only asking them to be responsible but to
comply with other Department of Defense cost accounting standards. So
why that should be unacceptable, I don't know.
So the Senator from Illinois has submitted an amendment that would
strike these requirements--it would strike these requirements--to
adhere to the Department of Defense cost accounting standards. Why? Why
would you not want to go along with cost accounting standards?
So it is certainly not an accident that the largest spike in
congressionally directed medical research funding coincides with the
tenure of the Senator from Illinois as chairman and ranking member of
the Appropriations Committee Defense Subcommittee, in which, I say, he
has done an outstanding job. Hundreds of millions of dollars in the
defense budget will be used for medical research unrelated to defense,
and it was not requested by the administration.
If this amendment passes, hundreds of millions of dollars will be
taken away from military servicemembers and their families. If this
amendment passes, hundreds of millions of dollars will not be used to
provide a full 2.1-percent pay raise for our troops. It will not be
used to build up the size of our Army and Marine Corps. It will not be
used to buy equipment so that our airmen don't have to steal spare
parts of airplanes in the boneyard to keep the oldest, smallest, and
least ready Air Force in our history in the air.
So I say to my friend and colleague from Illinois, it is not that he
is wrong to support medical research. We all support medical research.
It is that he has proposed the wrong amendment to support medical
research. Instead of proposing to take away hundreds of millions of
dollars from our military servicemembers, he should be proposing a way
to begin the long overdue process of shifting nonmilitary medical
research spending out of the Department of Defense and into the
appropriate civilian departments and agencies of our government.
I want to emphasize again that this debate is not about the value of
this medical research or whether Congress should support it. I, of all
people, know the miracle of modern medicine and am grateful for all who
support it, and I am sure every Senator understands the value of
medical research to Americans suffering from these diseases and to the
family and friends who care for them and to all those who know the pain
and grief of losing a loved one. But I will repeat again that this
research does not belong in the Department of Defense. It belongs in
civilian departments and agencies of our government.
So I say to my colleagues that the National Defense Authorization Act
focuses the Department's research efforts on medical research that will
lead to lifesaving advancements in battlefield medicine and new
therapies for recovery and rehabilitation of servicemembers wounded on
the battlefield. This amendment would harm our national security. The
amendment of the Senator from Illinois would harm our national security
by reducing the funding available for militarily relevant medical
research that helps protect servicemen and servicewomen on the
battlefield and for military capabilities they desperately need to
perform their missions. It would continue to put decision-making about
medical research in the hands of lobbyists and politicians, instead of
medical experts where it belongs.
I would like to repeat for at least the fifth time that I strongly
support funding for medical research. I do not support funding for
medical research that has nothing to do with the Department of Defense.
The dollars are too scarce. You can see the way that it has gone up and
up and up. So what we are trying to do is to preserve medical research
where it applies to the Department of Defense and not use it for every
other program, which should be funded by other agencies of government.
I am very aware of the power and influence of the lobbyists who lobby
for this kind of money, knowing full well that this is the easiest
place to get the money.
I just hope that some of us would understand that 10 sailors just
died onboard the USS John S. McCain. They died because that ship was
not ready, not trained, not equipped, and not capable of doing its job
because they didn't have enough funding. Let's get our priorities
straight.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. I object.
Go ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Illinois be recognized for up to 2 minutes and then, following
that, that I be recognized, and then, following that, Senator
Gillibrand.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I object. I was next in line.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I believe I am recognized and have the
floor.
[[Page S5721]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip is recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the men and women of our military defend
us on a daily basis without a doubt, but now, today, is our time to do
the same for them.
One thing I cannot defend is how we continue to tie our own hands
when it comes to funding the U.S. military.
This week we are considering, of course, the Defense Authorization
Act that will help ensure that our military has the resources it needs
to achieve the mission of today and rise to the challenges of tomorrow,
but there is a fundamental problem with the way we equip the men and
women we task with defending us. It is called sequestration. The
sequester was called for by the Budget Control Act, which puts annual
caps on defense and nondefense discretionary spending, and enforces
those caps with a kind of budget cleaver. In other words, any spending
that exceeds the caps automatically gets axed.
That sounds like a good idea in the abstract. Who doesn't want to
treat our addiction to spending? Who doesn't want to put the Federal
Government on a diet? I certainly do, but I am not willing to sacrifice
our national security and the No. 1 priority of the Federal Government
when it comes to providing for our mutual defense. In the words of the
junior Senator from Arkansas, himself a veteran, he said: ``Rather than
attack America's spending problem at its root, the law only clipped a
few stray leaves off the branches.''
If we are going to be serious about reducing our deficit, we must
address our budget priorities by looking at and addressing all
government spending, not just the 30 percent or so that is
discretionary. The reason we are not serious about dealing with our
looming deficits and debt is not because of defense spending, it is
because of mandatory entitlement spending, which is the political third
rail of our government, and politicians are so afraid to deal with that
mandatory spending that we cut defense spending into the muscle, to the
bone, and it leads to the sort of dangers the Senator from Arizona
talked about, in terms of a lack of readiness and training.
The caps in sequester, mind you, do not represent any defense policy;
instead, they were driven by our failure to get serious about the real
budget threat: explosive growth in government-funded entitlement
programs. Appropriated necessary funding for our Armed Forces should
not be held hostage because of our inability to tighten our belts in
other areas where the real runaway growth has occurred. It is past time
to annually pass appropriations to fund the Department of Defense. It
is past time to objectively assess and fund the actual and ever-
changing defense needs of our country.
What are the results of the Budget Control Act? Well, we are not
really saving money, but we are wasting time. We repeatedly raise the
Budget Control Act's budget caps at the last minute, meaning they
really don't keep spending down. Meanwhile, our military's ability to
plan and forecast is severely hampered. When you can't plan, you are
not ready, and it is no exaggeration to say that we now find ourselves
in a true state of a readiness crisis. Our military, already under
great stress and stretched thin around the world, has suffered from 15
years of continued operations, budgetary restrictions, and deferred
investment.
According to General Walters, the Assistant Commandant of the Marine
Corps, more than half of the Marines' fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft
were unable to fly at the end of 2016--more than half of the Marines'
fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft were unable to fly at the end of
2016. That is outrageous. The Navy fleet currently stands at 277 of the
350-ship requirement.
The Air Force had 134 fighter squadrons in 1991, when we drove Saddam
Hussein out of Kuwait. Now it has only 55--in 2017, 55, and in 1991,
134, and we have 1,500 fewer fighter pilots than we need.
Heather Wilson, Secretary of the Air Force, put it earlier this week,
when she said, ``We have been doing too much with too little for too
long.'' We need to hear these words, and we need to remember how they
spell out in the real world--how they affect our sailors, our pilots,
and our troops on the ground.
This summer, the Nation mourned 42 servicemembers who died in
accidents related to readiness challenges. Mr. McCain, the Senator from
Arizona, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee,
pointed out the death of 17 sailors aboard the USS John S. McCain and
USS Fitzgerald alone, plus other separate actions claimed the lives of
19 marines and 6 soldiers.
Meanwhile, the world has not become a safer, more peaceful place. We
keep trying to cash that peace dividend, but there is no peace. In
fact, when our adversaries see us retreating from our commitment to
fund, equip, and train our military, it is a provocation. They see an
opportunity, whether it is Vladimir Putin in Crimea, Ukraine, or China
in the South China Sea, or Kim Jong Un in North Korea, they see our
retreat, in terms of our financial commitment to support and train our
military, as a provocation and an invitation for them to fill the void.
I am reminded of a sobering quote from the former Director of
National Intelligence during a hearing last year. Former Director James
Clapper said: ``In my time in the intelligence business''--and he
served for 50 years in the intelligence business--``I don't recall a
time when we have been confronted with a more diverse array of
threats.''
In 50 years, he didn't recall us being confronted with a more diverse
array of threats. On top of these threats, never before has our country
been at war for such an extended period of time, and never before have
we done so much with an All-Volunteer military force strained by
repeated deployments while defense spending was cut nearly 15 percent
over the last 8 years under the previous administration.
So here is what I say. Let's pass the national defense authorization
bill, which authorizes $700 billion for our Nation's defense. Let's
give our troops the pay raise they deserve. Let's address our readiness
problems by authorizing increases in the overall number of soldiers and
marines. When doing that, let's also do away with the sequester on
defense spending. Reductions to defense spending should be targeted--
think scalpel, not meat cleaver--and our focus on cutting should be
where the bulk of our spending is: outside of the military on mandatory
spending, growing at a rate in excess of 5 percent a year, out of
control and threatening the solvency of these important safety net
programs.
Colleagues, while we take the fight to ISIS, while we seek to deter
aggression in the Pacific and support our emergency responders here at
home, including the military, we can't postpone our problems. Our
challenges can't be postponed and are not disappearing.
As I said a moment ago, our adversaries are watching closely and
modernizing while at home our readiness wavers. Sequestration causes
our aircraft to age, our soldiers to tire, and our national security to
deteriorate. Trouble is not going to wait on us getting our act
together. Whether our military is ready or not, here it comes.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank the leaders of the Armed
Services Committee. I know the Presiding Officer serves on that
committee so he is well aware of the extraordinary work and service
done by Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed and our colleagues on
the committee who have cooperated so collegially, in a bipartisan way,
to produce a defense bill that supports our military men and women and
their families and, more importantly, supports the United States of
America in continuing to be the greatest and strongest power ever on
the planet.
I want to talk about some of the specifics of that measure but first
want to honor the 17 sailors who perished on the USS McCain and USS
Fitzgerald. Two of them were sailors from Connecticut, and I want to
pay tribute to ET2 Dustin Doyon of Suffield and ST2 Ngoc Truong Huynh
of Watertown, CT. They were true patriots. Their families
[[Page S5722]]
should be proud of them. All of Connecticut celebrates their
extraordinary service and sacrifice to our Nation, even as we are
struck by the grief and share the sadness of their families as best we
can.
I know we also feel we owe it to them, their families, and all
families of the men and women in uniform to be safe. The investigation
is proceeding into the circumstances surrounding the crash that caused
their deaths. I will be interested, and I hope that investigation will
be expedited.
The NDAA is a vital measure that preserves our national security in
an uncertain era of unprecedented threats and delivers support
necessary to sustain our servicemembers and our national defense. A
number of the provisions I helped craft in this measure will improve
opportunities for veterans, military sexual assault survivors, help
with the Ukrainian soldiers, and extend the Afghan special immigrant
visa program. Those measures, among others, I am proud to have
participated in crafting and supporting.
This year's bill invests billions of dollars in submarines,
helicopters, and the Joint Strike Fighter engine, all produced by
Connecticut's highly skilled and dedicated workforce.
The bill includes over $8 billion for Virginia and Columbia class
submarines, including over $1 billion above the President's request for
Virginia funding and full funding for the Columbia class program
following a successful amendment I led to secure our undersea
superiority and grow Connecticut jobs. Nothing is more important to our
national defense than our undersea superiority. The stealth, strength,
and power of our submarine force is vital to our national security.
The measure also includes $25 million for undersea research and
development partnerships which Electric Boat and the University of
Connecticut are well poised to take part in.
This defense measure provides, as well, $10.6 billion for 94 Joint
Strike Fighters across the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, adding 24
above the budget request submitted by the President. Those 24 are
necessary, and they are important now.
It includes $1 billion for 48 Army Black Hawks, $1.3 billion for six
Marine Corps CH-53Ks--two more than requested--and $354 million for the
Air Force Combat Rescue Helicopter Program.
Today our Active and Reserve components are deployed together in
Afghanistan, and the National Guard brings unique capabilities to the
fight. I am very proud of the Connecticut National Guard. I am proud to
be a supporter, to work to protect and secure their vital mission as
they work for us.
This year's NDAA authorizes $7 million in military construction for a
new base entry complex, bringing the 103rd Airlift Wing into compliance
with the Department of Defense's antiterrorism and force protection
requirements to support their C-130 mission.
For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
For these reasons and many others, this bill keeps faith with our
military men and women. It secures our national defense. It provides
the assurance going forward that we will remain as strong as we need to
be as the world's only superpower, guaranteeing not only our own
freedom but that of others around the world.
As we consider amendments on the floor, I urge my colleagues to
reject the new BRAC proposal that was introduced by Chairman McCain and
Ranking Member Reed as McCain amendment No. 933. With all due respect,
I support the intent. Again, I thank them for all of their work on this
bill, as it has been an extraordinary accomplishment to bring it this
far and to, hopefully, within the next few days, get it over the finish
line. The intent is good. Our military is capitalizing on future
savings where they exist, and it must continue to do so. Base closings
will be necessary, as that is a stark fact of life, but I cannot
support the BRAC effort they have proposed.
The BRAC amendment would set in motion a long and time-consuming and
convoluted base closure process. Connecticut is all too familiar with
that process. We had a near-death experience with our base not all that
long ago. It was an experience that should sound alarm bells not only
for Connecticut but for other States my colleagues represent. As a
Senator who represents one of the last military bases in New England, I
am deeply concerned that there may be harm to civil-military relations
and harm to our national security that will be caused by closing bases
in our region.
The first obligation of Congress is to do no harm to these military
bases. Connecticut has seen this process before. It took almost a
decade for the Connecticut Air National Guard to be assigned the C-130
flying mission that was the outcome of the last BRAC round. To carry
out this mission, the Connecticut Air National Guard began deploying in
support of operations in the Middle East this year.
I know personally about that BRAC process. I was involved in the BRAC
Commission proceedings, and afterward I was involved in literally suing
the Secretary of Defense to preserve the flying mission of our base at
the Air National Guard in Connecticut. Closing that base to the Air
National Guard, to the C-130, or to other planes like it would have
been a disgraceful outcome, but we succeeded in reaching a result,
through settlement, that preserved it.
The submarine capital of the world, also known as the ``First and
Finest Submarine Base,'' is in Connecticut. The fate of that base, the
Naval Submarine Base of New London, was unnecessarily put in jeopardy
in 2005 as it endured unnecessary questions over its viability and
military value that delayed investments and the homeporting of
submarines there. Given the importance and prominence of our submarine
fleet today, as well as the $17 million since 2005 that the State has
invested in this base--$17 million invested by the taxpayers of the
State of Connecticut--it is inconceivable that we would close this
asset. It is home to 16 submarines as well as to a submarine training
school.
BRAC is long on unrealized returns and short on increased readiness.
In 2005, BRAC was anticipated to cost $21 billion and save over $35
billion in the next 20 years. In reality, costs have ballooned to $35
billion, and savings will be less than one-third of what was initially
projected--just $10 billion. That is the 2005 BRAC verdict; that it
costs more than it saves. Simply put, BRAC cuts capabilities, and we
can never get those capabilities back. At a time of global uncertainty
and an expanding threat environment, we should be investing more, not
less, in our readiness.
As a first step, I would welcome an independent study on where excess
capacity exists today, but I am concerned that this amendment sets into
motion a BRAC authorization before Congress is provided with the
justification for doing so and where and how it should be set in
motion. I am concerned this amendment employs a force structure
baseline that has not been adequately assessed by the Department of
Defense. That force structure baseline is the lifeblood of our future
military, and moving forward without it provides a distorted view of
where excess capacity may exist.
The BRAC amendment eliminates the independent commission that was
previously designed by Congress in an effort to take politics out of
the process. I deeply respect my colleagues who support this measure,
but I have no confidence that they will be able to set aside the impact
closures will have on their individual States. Let's be very blunt.
This measure will exacerbate the role of politics in this process, not
diminish it.
While an independent commission is by no measure completely above
politics, removing it will aggravate the roles that parochialism and
politics play in deciding the future of military installations. Under
the rules of the Senate, this body stripped itself of the ability to
even make requests for individual military construction projects at
specific bases. It follows that deciding the fate of entire military
bases should also be a power we keep from ourselves.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, for our own sake, as
Members of a body that should support our national defense, keep it as
free as possible from politics and parochialism, and make sure we
insulate it as much as possible from the currents and forces of special
interests. I admire and respect the time and effort our committee
leaders have devoted to this amendment. If it is defeated, I will
[[Page S5723]]
work with them to address the issues I have outlined. Base closing must
be considered. There are bases that can and should be reduced and
perhaps completely eliminated, but I cannot support the BRAC amendment
before us, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.
Again, I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator McCain, and the
ranking member, Senator Reed, for all of their great work on this very
important measure, which I hope will be passed shortly.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, this week, we are debating the
National Defense Authorization Act of 2018. It is very important, and
Members of both sides have contributed to this very important
legislation we pass every year. It funds our military and authorizes
its spending and training. It is really one of the most important
things we do in the Senate.
As have many others, I thank the members of the Armed Services
Committee. I have the privilege of serving on that committee. I thank
Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for the hard work they and all
of the members of the committee have put into this and for how
seriously we take this responsibility.
You have heard the discussions. This bill is needed now more than
ever. We are seeing accidents, in terms of training, that are killing
the lives of young men and women who are serving in the military, and a
lot of it is due to readiness. In fact, in the past 8 years, the U.S.
military has seen its budget decline by almost 25 percent. It is a huge
decrease--just pick up the paper and see what is going on in the
world--when we know that the national security threats to the United
States have dramatically increased. We have decreasing budgets and
increasing national security challenges, and this NDAA begins the much
needed process of changing that.
I would like to focus on one such threat that we need to address
right now that is at the doorstep of our great Nation and what the NDAA
is doing specifically about that threat. The threat is North Korea's
nuclear intercontinental ballistic activity and capability. As the
Presiding Officer knows, that has now literally become a threat to
every city in the United States, not just to frontline States like
mine, which is the great State of Alaska, or Hawaii, as they are closer
to Asia than is any other place in the United States. This threat is
now on the doorstep of every American city.
For years, a lot of the ``experts'' and intel officials were saying:
Hey, don't worry about this. They are trying, but this threat is a long
way off into the future.
Some of us were skeptical of those estimates, and now we know those
estimates were wrong. It is no longer a matter of ``if'' but ``when''
the North Korean regime will have the capability of launching a nuclear
intercontinental ballistic missile that will be aimed at the United
States of America.
Recently, there was a disturbing article written in the Washington
Post, the lead paragraph of which reads:
North Korea will be able to field a reliable, nuclear-
capable intercontinental ballistic missile as early as next
year, U.S. officials have concluded in a confidential
assessment, that dramatically shrinks the timeline for when
Pyongyang could strike North American cities with atomic
weapons.
This assessment was leaked by someone within the Pentagon's Defense
Intelligence Agency, and it shaves almost 2 full years off of what we
thought North Korea's capability was. Right now, the threat is here.
Think about this threat with regard to who is leading North Korea--an
unstable dictator who has shown that he is not rational.
Let me go into a little bit more of the threat here. When you look at
the different regimes--Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and Kim Jong Un, who
is the current dictator of North Korea--in just the 5 years since he
has come to power, he has conducted more than 80 missile tests and over
twice as many nuclear tests as both his father and grandfather did in
their 60 years of ruling North Korea. Look at this chart. It shows
missile tests, nuclear tests--5 years--way more than his father and
grandfather ever did.
And while several of these missile tests have been failures, we have
obviously seen clear successes. In fact, while many Americans were
celebrating the Fourth of July holiday--our patriotism, our liberty,
our military--Kim Jong Un launched a successful test of an
intercontinental ballistic missile.
On the nuclear side, we have seen activity even more recently,
allegedly a test of a hydrogen bomb with an estimated yield of 120
kilotons--their third nuclear test since January 2016. It was eight
times more powerful than their last test.
The bottom line with regard to this threat from a very unstable
regime is they are making very significant progress.
So that is the threat. It is very real--on our shores--led by an
unstable dictator who has threatened to use these weapons.
What are we doing about it? Well, we have the capability to defend
against this threat, and that capability is through much more enhanced
missile defense for the homeland of the United States--for our cities.
That is what this National Defense Authorization Act does.
Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Government
has not taken homeland missile defense very seriously. One study
recently found that in its history, our homeland missile defense has
been characterized by a ``trend of high ambition followed by increasing
modesty.''
The ``high ambition'' has been largely driven by the threats to our
Nation, but the modesty component has been largely a function of
decreasing budgets for the Missile Defense Agency. In fact, from 2006
to 2016, the Missile Defense Agency's budget has declined nearly 25
percent. Homeland missile defense testing has declined by nearly 83
percent. So when our adversaries are testing and advancing, we have
been going in the opposite direction.
I am glad to say that this year's NDAA reverses this long-term trend
of homeland missile defense neglect.
Earlier this year, with a number of my colleagues in this body, we
introduced the Advancing America's Missile Defense Act of 2017. This is
a bill that we worked on for months, with experts in missile defense,
the military experts, the civilian experts, to say: What do we need to
better protect the United States of America? What are the key elements?
We put this together in a bill that we introduced several months ago,
focusing on the following key areas:
First, the Advancing America's Missile Defense Act would dramatically
increase our capacity for what are called our ground-based missile
interceptors--up to 28 more interceptors--and require our military to
look at fielding 100 more--up to 100 missile interceptors--to fully
protect the United States.
Second, our bill would advance the technology to not only have more
ground-based missile interceptors but the kill vehicles on top of those
missiles--the bullets from which the missiles could shoot additional
warheads. This is technology that is advancing, but it needs to advance
much more quickly.
Third, our bill looks at integrating the different missile defense
systems throughout the world. So in theater, for example, in South
Korea, we have the THAAD system, and we have that on Guam. We have
Aegis systems with our Navy ships, and then we have our ground-based
system back home, in the homeland of the United States. Our bill looks
at integrating these systems with a space-based sensor, to have an
unblinking eye, in terms of the technology, that can track and shoot
down missiles coming to the United States and integrate with regional
defenses and our homeland defenses.
Fourth, our bill focuses on more testing for missile defense.
As I mentioned, the decline of the testing has inhibited the
development of these systems. It focuses on the testing but also doing
the testing with our allies that are also advancing missile defense in
different areas of the world.
As I mentioned, we worked on this bill for months. One of the key
elements I am most proud of in this bill is the strong bipartisan
support it has received in the Senate and in the House. Importantly,
when we introduced it as part of the NDAA markup, we had over one-
quarter of all of the Members of the U.S. Senate who were already
cosponsors--Democrats and Republicans
[[Page S5724]]
from literally every region of the United States.
This is a first and important development in a long time with regard
to missile defense. Unfortunately, for years, that has been viewed as a
partisan issue, not a bipartisan issue. And what we were trying to do
as we developed this bill was to say this shouldn't be partisan. This
is a threat that every city in America is going to have to deal with.
Let's work together and get a bipartisan bill together.
I was proud when the Wall Street Journal editorial wrote about this
bill and emphasized that bipartisan nature. A few months ago they
wrote:
[The Advancing America's Missile Defense Act] has united
conservatives such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and liberal
Democrats such as Gary Peters and Brian Schatz, no small feat
in the Trump era. . . . Mr. Sullivan's missile-defense
amendment would be a down payment on a safer America in an
ever more dangerous world.
Why did they write this? Because they understand the importance of
having bipartisan support for missile defense but also the importance
of making sure that Congress leads on this important issue. Thankfully,
that is what the NDAA does this year--both versions--the Senate version
and the House version.
The vast majority of our bill that we introduced we debated in the
markup for the NDAA this year. Again, I thank Senators McCain and Reed
and other members of the committee for the way in which the broader
NDAA came together. But we debated this bill, and the vast majority of
our bill on advancing America's missile defense is now in this NDAA--
one of the many reasons I am encouraging all of my colleagues in the
Senate to vote to pass it.
Something else that I think is important for my constituents to know
but also for all Americans to know is the role that Alaska plays in
America's missile defense. For those of my colleagues who sit on the
Armed Services Committee, they have heard me say this many, many times.
There is a famous quote in congressional testimony back in the 1930s by
the father of the Air Force, Gen. Billy Mitchell. His quote in front of
Congress was: Alaska is the most strategic place in the world because
of its location on the top of the world. Whoever owns Alaska literally
controls the world.
Fortunately, the United States owns Alaska. So we are, because of
that strategic location, the cornerstone of our Nation's missile
defense. If there were a missile launched from North Korea or Iran or
anywhere else in the world, the trajectory would take it over Alaska.
It would be tracked by radars in Alaska. It would be shot down by
missiles based in Alaska. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion located at
Fort Greely, AK, is a National Guard unit. They have a fantastic motto:
300 protecting the 300 million--young men and women serving in the
Guard on duty 24/7, protecting the entire country--300 of them
protecting the entire United States. That is a worthy mission that we
are glad is done so well by the members of the Alaska National Guard.
So this bill does a lot. The NDAA this year, which we are debating on
the floor now, finally takes seriously this important mission of
missile defense. As I have noted, it does a lot to advance it.
We have a couple of additional amendments that we are working on and
hopefully are going to get passed out of the managers' package that
would make even more advances to missile defense. We are going to
continue to work those, and, hopefully, we will continue to have the
bipartisan support that we did when this bill was marked up.
I remain hopeful that we are finally starting to reverse the trend in
missile defense that, as I noted earlier, was one of high ambition
followed by increasing modesty.
Today we need ambition, and we need action. The threat warrants it.
The American people demand it. The Congress must step up and deliver
it. That is what is happening in this NDAA, along with many other
important and critical provisions for our Nation's military. I
encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of passage of this
important bill.
Tribute to Micah McKinnis
Madam President, Micah McKinnis began working for me 2 years ago as
my military legislative correspondent. He is actually sitting with me
right now, and today is his last day in my office. It is a sad day for
everyone in my office, but Micah is going on to do bigger and better
things with that unit I just talked about, the Alaska National Guard.
While in my office he has done amazing work, including championing my
India policy and fighting for more resources for our combat rescue
squadrons and playing an important role in helping us develop this
missile defense bill. I am genuinely happy for him and his wife, and I
look forward to seeing them up in Alaska, as he is getting ready to go
join the military himself. He is going to head out for training. He is
looking to be a pararescue member of the military. It is some of the
toughest training we have in the U.S. military, but I know he is going
to do very well.
So Micah, thanks for all you have done, all the things you have done
for Alaska. You will always be part of our family. Good luck to you and
your family.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to
vote for a bipartisan amendment, No. 1051, to protect transgender
servicemembers in our military.
I want to thank my dear friend and colleague, Senator McCain, the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee and his staff, for working
with us on this bipartisan amendment to protect transgender
servicemembers and for agreeing to support it here on the floor today.
The amendment, which I was so proud to write with my Republican
colleague from Maine, Senator Susan Collins, would prohibit the
Department of Defense from discharging members of the military or
denying them reenlistment opportunities because of their gender
identity. It is essential that this Congress does not break faith with
these brave servicemembers who have served their country honorably and
with great sacrifice.
As Members of the Senate, one of our most serious responsibilities is
to stand up for the men and women who serve in our armed services. We
have an obligation to represent their interests, to value and respect
their service, and to give them the tools and resources they need to
defend our country. Kicking out thousands of servicemembers simply
because of their gender identity doesn't make our military stronger, it
makes our military weaker. It doesn't save taxpayer money, it wastes
taxpayer money. We have spent millions recruiting and training these
highly skilled servicemembers.
I want to be clear to those who misunderstand our U.S. military
members, to those who somehow think our military cannot handle
diversity among its servicemembers: Do not underestimate the men and
women who serve in uniform. They represent the best and strongest among
us.
An argument against diversity in the military is wrong. We heard this
argument during the fight to end racial segregation. We heard it during
the fight to allow women to serve. We heard it during the fight to end
don't ask, don't tell, which I was proud to work on with the Republican
Senator from Maine once again. And here, once again, this argument is
wrong. Our military is strongest when it represents the Nation it
serves.
Rather than shrinking the talent pool and telling patriotic Americans
that they cannot serve, we should be doing everything we can to
encourage and support them. We should thank them for their devotion to
service, for their willingness to leave their families for months at a
time and risk their own lives and safety to protect us.
This transgender ban affects individuals who were brave enough to
join the military, men and women who were tough enough to make it
through rigorous military training, men and women who love our country
enough to risk their lives for it, to fight for it and even die for it.
To suggest these brave, tough, and selfless transgender Americans
somehow don't belong in our military is harmful to our military
readiness, and it is deeply insulting to our troops.
Don't tell me that U.S. Air Force SSgt Logan Ireland, who deployed to
Afghanistan and has earned numerous
[[Page S5725]]
commendations since the ban on transgender service was lifted, should
be kicked out of our military. Don't tell me a young recruit like U.S.
Marine Aaron Wixson, who left college to enlist in the field artillery
and worked diligently with his chain of command during his gender
transition to meet every requirement asked of him, should be kicked out
of the military. Do not tell me that Navy LCDR Blake Dremann, who
identified as transgender while serving in Afghanistan and has deployed
11 times and won the Navy's highest logistics award and now shapes our
military policy at the Pentagon--don't tell me he should be kicked out
of the military. Any individual serving in our military today who meets
the standards should be allowed to serve, period.
I urge my colleagues to join me, the Republican Senator from Maine,
and Senator John McCain, on our bipartisan amendment to allow
transgender men and women to stay in the military and continue to serve
our country and keep us safe.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support my bipartisan amendment with Senator Lee calling for a ``think
first'' assessment of recent Russian violations of the Intermediate-
Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the response of the United States.
The INF Treaty has been the bedrock of European security for nearly
three decades, and Congress must ask a few reasonable questions before
we fund a missile research and development program that our military
leaders have not asked for, that our allies do not want, that would
undermine the spirit and intent of our longstanding treaty commitment,
and that would make the world a more dangerous place.
No one is more concerned about Russia's recent aggression than I am.
From their annexation of Crimea to their meddling in our election and
the elections of our allies, Russia's behavior must be met with a firm
and unequivocal response.
Last month, I traveled to the Baltics to see firsthand the threat
Russia poses to NATO allies and to meet with senior U.S. Army officials
and local political leaders. On that trip, one thing was abundantly
clear: We need to be tough in the face of Russian provocation, but we
also need to be smart. That is what our amendment is about today. It
isn't about playing politics; it is about smart, strategic, informed
toughness that advances the interests of the United States of America.
The INF treaty, negotiated and signed by President Reagan nearly 30
years ago, erased an entire class of nuclear weapons from the European
continent. It eliminated ground-launched missiles with a range of 500
to 5,500 kilometers--roughly up to twice the distance between Moscow
and Paris. This is also the same class of missile that Russia deployed
earlier this year, in violation of the treaty.
Russia's treaty violations have been widely reported. There is no
question that bringing Russia back into compliance with the treaty must
be a top priority. Russian compliance is in the best interest of the
United States, it is in the best interest of our European and Asia
Pacific allies, and it is ultimately in the best interest of the
Russian Federation. But this is a tough job. Our military leaders have
told us they see no indication that Russia plans to resume honoring its
treaty obligations anytime soon.
In the short term, we must ensure that Russia does not gain a
military advantage from its violation and that Russia--Russia--takes
the blame on the world stage for breaking this treaty. We cannot
accomplish these goals by signaling to the world that we have lost
faith in the very treaty we seek to preserve. But that is exactly what
section 1635 of the NDAA would do. This section calls for the
``establishment of a research and development program for a dual-
capable, road-mobile, ground-launched missile system with a maximum
range of 5,500 kilometers''--or, in plain language, the development of
a new nuclear missile that we have publicly sworn never to test or
deploy.
The proposed R&D program is in itself not a violation of the INF
treaty, which only bans testing and deployment, but there is no denying
that such a missile program is a violation of the spirit and intent of
our treaty commitment, and that is exactly how our allies and
adversaries alike will see it.
The reality of this proposal is crystal clear: Either we are
authorizing millions of taxpayer dollars to be wasted on research and
development of a missile we never intend to build or test, or we are
pushing the door wide open to an upcoming violation of the INF Treaty.
In opening that door, we would be signaling not only to the Russians
but also to our treaty partners around the world that the United States
is preparing to walk away from a nuclear treaty commitment. In sending
that signal, we are basically giving Russia the excuse it is looking
for to shed remaining international constraints, to justify an
acceleration of its intermediate-range nuclear program, and to spark a
new contest of nuclear escalation. Such a move can quickly increase the
number of nuclear weapons deployed throughout the world and send the
globe into a second cold war reality--a reality where we live with the
constant threat that one preemptive move, one miscalculation could wipe
away everything we hold dear.
Supporters claim that a new missile is needed not only to compete
with Russia but also to counter a more assertive China, which is not
bound by the agreement. But I have seen no evidence to support these
arguments. If anything, a tit-for-tat response is more likely to
embolden Putin to up the ante by deploying some more missiles and
perhaps withdrawing from the INF Treaty altogether.
The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Paul Selva, has
already told us that a new intermediate-range missile is not necessary
to hold targets in China at risk.
To ensure that our response to Russian treaty violations is based in
international strategy rather than just in knee-jerk responses, Senator
Lee and I are offering a commonsense amendment requiring that before we
spend a dime of taxpayer money on the proposed missile program, the
Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State should work together to
address a few critical questions.
First, what is the status, capability, and threat posed to our allies
by Russia's new ground-launched cruise missile?
Secretary Mattis has stated that Russia's treaty violation would not
provide Russia with a ``significant military advantage.'' Is this still
the Secretary's assessment? General Selva has said: ``Given the
location of the specific missile and the deployment, [the Russians]
don't gain any advantage in Europe.'' Is this still the general's
assessment? We should not blindly commit taxpayer money and undermine
our treaty commitment without understanding the threat.
Second, does our military believe that a new ground-launched,
intermediate-range missile that is not compliant with our treaty
obligations is our most effective response to Russia?
The Pentagon did not request funding for a new intermediate-range
missile. According to a report by the Pentagon just last year, there
are multiple options on the table to pressure Russia back into treaty
compliance, including enhancements to the European Reassurance
Initiative and additional active defenses. That is in addition to the
other available tools of national power that could strengthen, rather
than weaken, the INF Treaty.
The Pentagon advocated for just such a multipronged approach, writing
that ``Russia's return to compliance with its obligations under the INF
treaty remains the preferable outcome, which argues against unilateral
U.S. withdrawal or abrogation of the INF treaty at this time.''
With the Pentagon reviewing options, Congress's proposed playground
approach of ``if you build a ground-based missile, I will build one
too'' is not the strategic response of generals and statesmen. In fact,
the administration has said that this new program would ``unhelpfully''
tie them ``to a specific type of missile system . . . which would limit
potential military response options'' at a time when DOD, State, and
Treasury are ``developing an integrated diplomatic, military, and
economic response strategy to maximize pressure on Russia.'' We must
let our military leaders and our diplomats
[[Page S5726]]
do their jobs and inform Congress before we act.
Third question: Will our NATO allies stand with us in this response,
and will any of our allies even be willing to host such a missile
system if we decide to deploy it?
Given our geographic advantages, a missile of this range does no good
on U.S. soil; it only works if it is installed on the ground of our
NATO allies.
The last time the United States weighed a land-based escalation in
Europe, millions of citizens took to the streets in protest, and in the
21st century, that call for nuclear disarmament of the European
continent has only grown. As General Selva recently acknowledged, we
don't even know whether any of our European allies would permit the
deployment of a nuclear-capable ground-launched missile on their
territory.
During the Cold War, Russian deployments of land-based cruise
missiles targeting Europe were, in part, a ploy to cause division among
the NATO countries, and the same could be said today. It is critical
that we respond as one indivisible NATO coalition, unshaken by Russia's
provocations.
So that is it--three must-ask questions deserving of must-have
answers: What is the nature of the threat? What is the Pentagon's
recommended military response? What action unites us with our NATO
allies? Until we have those answers, heading down the path of
destroying the INF Treaty is grossly irresponsible.
Support to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and prevent their
spread to more nations has always been a nonpartisan issue.
When President Reagan signed this treaty into law, he said that
``patience, determination, and commitment made this impossible vision
[of the INF Treaty] a reality.'' Ever since then, the treaty has served
as the bedrock of our efforts to build a safe and peaceful world in a
nuclear age; to build a world where schoolchildren spend their days
learning to read and write, not practicing duck-and-cover drills; to
build a world where families live in hope for what tomorrow may bring,
not in fear that a flash of light may sweep away everything they love;
to build a world that looks to the United States to steadily lead
toward sustained peace and security. This amendment continues in that
spirit.
I thank Senator Lee for his leadership on this bipartisan effort.
When we announced this amendment, he said that the amendment ``would
set the precedent that the [United States] should not immediately react
to an adversary's treaty violation by violating the same treaty
ourselves. That's not how working in good faith in the international
community is done.'' He is right.
I want to acknowledge Senator Cardin, the ranking member on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Feinstein, a longtime
arms control champion, and thank them for their leadership to prevent
nuclear proliferation and ensure that America upholds its international
obligations. I thank Senator Reed, the ranking member of the Armed
Services Committee, for his strong support on this issue. We are all
grateful for his efforts.
On the 30th anniversary of the treaty, we must give no cause to doubt
that the United States stands by its word, that it is committed to this
treaty, and that it is committed to working with allies to bring Russia
back into compliance.
The INF Treaty removed thousands of nuclear weapons from the face of
the globe, and we must be certain that we have exhausted all options
before we walk away from it.
Rather than simply dusting off a nuclear escalation play from the
early 1980s, I ask my colleagues to join us in allowing the Secretaries
of Defense and State to do their jobs, to weigh the options, and to
recommend a course of action. I ask them to join us in allowing
information and strategy to guide our policy. I ask them to join us in
supporting this amendment to the NDAA.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I would like to express my support for
the ongoing deliberative process to address the very valid concerns
raised with sections 881 and 886 of the fiscal year 2018 National
Defense Authorization Act. Earlier today, I filed an amendment that
seeks to clarify the committee's intent with respect to open source
requirements and intellectual property rights and protections for U.S.
technology vendors who collaborate with the Department of Defense. I
want to be clear that this language does not represent the ultimate
fix, but rather a step in the right direction as we embark on a longer
policy discussion in conference.
I want to thank the chairman, my colleagues on the Senate Armed
Services Committee, and my counterparts on the House Armed Services
Committee for their commitment to continue this conversation in
conference. It is essential that we provide both the Department and
industry the proper tools, protections, and incentives necessary to
continue these mutually beneficial partnerships on the commercial off-
the-shelf and the custom-developed software side. I am confident we can
reach consensus and send the President language that clearly
articulates a fair and sustainable model for existing and future
contracts.
Madam President, as chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Subcommittee on Personnel, I would like to make a statement for the
record about an item of special interest related to the Department of
Defense's use of its intellectual property rights in certain drug
products within the committee report on the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018.
The committee report contains language that directs the Defense
Department to exercise its rights under the Bayh-Dole Act ``to
authorize third parties to use inventions that benefited from DOD
funding whenever the price of a drug, vaccine, or other medical
technology is higher in the United States'' as compared to prices in
foreign countries.
This language is of concern to me for several reasons. The DOD and
other Federal agencies face significant obstacles such as low
procurement quantities, high regulatory risk, and complex Federal
contracting regulations when working to attract the top vaccine and
drug developers as partners in medical countermeasure development to
protect the warfighter and America's citizens. Diluting intellectual
property protections as a means of price control will not only fail to
meet its objective, but it could significantly hamper the government's
efforts to develop these critical medical capabilities. The report
language could lead to decreased investments in medical countermeasures
development and a drop-off in industry partnerships with DOD that can
ultimately result in few new drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics.
Bayh-Dole has created a fragile ecosystem of collaboration among
Federal agencies, public research institutions, and private industry,
resulting in the commercialization of inventions for use by the
American people, especially in the area of medical countermeasures
often developed specifically for our servicemembers and veterans. The
idea of regulating the price of a commercialized invention was never
contemplated by Congress when passing the Bayh-Dole Act.
I have concerns that the committee report language could chill
medical innovation by raising the risk of a Federal partnership to a
level that is unacceptable for many private entities. This is
problematic for small businesses that have less capital to risk on
products subject to unpredictable price controls. While the
availability of medical innovations to the American public remains an
area of great interest to me, I strongly believe that we should pursue
more appropriate and effective ways to achieve this goal without
stifling innovation or discouraging public private partnerships.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I have just spoken with Chairman
McCain about the status of the Defense bill. He and Senator Reed have
already processed more than 100 amendments to the bill with broad
bipartisan input. Unfortunately, the two sides have now reached an
impasse on further amendments. Senator McCain has offered a reasonable
list that could have been voted on this afternoon, but it appears we
are not able to enter that agreement because of issues unrelated to
NDAA. Therefore, it is my hope that we can move to finish the bill
sooner rather than later and vote to invoke cloture this afternoon.
[[Page S5727]]
The Senate will vote on a critical HUD nomination after lunch, and it
is my hope that we can move the cloture vote on NDAA to occur in that
stack after lunch.
Our next order of business will be, following the Defense
authorization bill, the nomination of the Solicitor General. This is
the person in the Justice Department who argues before the Supreme
Court, and the Supreme Court October term begins shortly.
Order of Procedure
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1 p.m. today, the
Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar
No. 109, as under the previous order, and that following disposition of
the nomination, the Senate resume legislative session and consideration
of H.R. 2810.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________