[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 188 (Thursday, November 16, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7276-S7278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2810, which will be stated by 
title.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the 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, 
     having met, have agreed that the House recede from its 
     disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agreed to the 
     same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same, 
     signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both 
     Houses.

  Thereupon, the Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of November 9, 2017.)
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the 
conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2018. This legislation is the culmination of months of bipartisan 
work. I want to thank my friend, the Senator from Rhode Island, as well 
as our colleagues in the House of Representatives, Mac Thornberry and 
Adam Smith, and the

[[Page S7277]]

dozens of members who served on the conference committee for their hard 
work and collaboration during this process. Together, we worked hard to 
negotiate the differences between the House and Senate versions of this 
bill, and the result is a piece of legislation that should make all 
Senators--and all Americans--proud.
  The fundamental purpose of the National Defense Authorization Act is 
to provide our Armed Forces with the resources, training, and equipment 
they need to keep us safe. We should consider this our highest duty and 
our greatest honor, to keep faith with the brave Americans who serve 
and sacrifice on our behalf.
  To do that, the NDAA authorizes funding, advances policies, and 
requires reforms that will support our men and women in uniform, but 
before I discuss the many laudable aspects of this legislation, let me 
lament for a moment the developments that have unfolded in recent days 
and delayed this important legislation.
  This delay concerns a provision in the defense bill to get our 
military emergency approval to use new lifesaving medicines on the 
battlefield. This provision was included in the original Senate version 
of this legislation that has been publicly available for several 
months, and it was included in this conference report with strong 
bipartisan and bicameral support. For years, the Department of Defense 
has struggled in vain to gain approval by the Food and Drug 
Administration for certain vital medical products, such as freeze-dried 
plasma, for use by our troops on the battlefield. Because the FDA 
failed to act time and again, the Senate Armed Services Committee did, 
and we received strong support from our House colleagues.
  It is outrageous that the National Defense Authorization Act has been 
held hostage by the desire to pass a separate piece of legislation to 
address this issue differently than this conference report. That 
separate legislation was the product of a compromise between the DOD 
and the FDA, to which neither the Senator from Rhode Island nor I was a 
party. Our preferred solution remains our original one.
  Yesterday, the Senator from Rhode Island and I received a letter from 
the FDA Commissioner, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, expressing his personal 
commitment to approve the use of freeze-dried plasma for battlefield 
use by our troops. He has also pledged to establish a new process for 
expedited consideration of the DOD's future emergency medical requests. 
This did not happen by accident. It happened because we acted and 
because we exposed the unacceptable ways in which the FDA has been 
failing our men and women in uniform for far too long.
  Dr. Gottlieb was only confirmed as FDA Commissioner in May, and we 
intend to hold him fully accountable for making good on his commitment, 
including through continued oversight by the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. However, if we are not satisfied that this new DOD-FDA 
compromise has fixed the problem, the Senate Armed Services Committee 
will take action through the NDAA next year. I know that the chairman 
and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee have expressed 
that same commitment. We owe nothing less to our men and women in 
uniform, who deserve our help in saving lives on the battlefield.
  Ultimately, that is the goal of every provision of the National 
Defense Authorization Act--to protect our brave servicemembers, here at 
home and around the world. The NDAA authorizes funding to rebuild our 
military and allow the Defense Department to embark on an ambitious 
program of modernization that is desperately needed and long overdue. 
The NDAA authorizes the acquisition of ships, aircraft, and equipment 
above and beyond the administration's request. It provides funding for 
an increase in end strength across all services, laying the groundwork 
for a total force, ready and capable of rising to the challenges of a 
world where threats are on the rise.
  The NDAA builds on the reforms this Congress has passed in recent 
years, continuing efforts to reorganize the Department of Defense, spur 
innovation in defense technology, and improve acquisition and business 
operations to strengthen accountability and streamline the process of 
getting our warfighters what they need to succeed. It prioritizes 
accountability from the Department and demands the best use of every 
taxpayer dollar.
  This legislation also authorizes funding for our missile defense 
systems to protect against rising threats. It makes important efforts 
to correct the dangerous lack of an effective strategy and policy for 
the information domain, including cyber, space, and electronic warfare.
  The NDAA authorizes a 2.4 percent pay raise for our troops, which is 
the largest in many years, and it includes several provisions to 
improve quality of life for our men and women in uniform. In 
particular, the legislation continues committee's efforts to protect 
our servicemembers from sexual assault and sexual harassment. There is 
more work to be done, and the committee will continue to conduct 
oversight and hold hearings to address these important issues.
  In total, the National Defense Authorization Act supports a defense 
budget of $700 billion for fiscal year 2018. This exceeds the 
administration's request by $26 billion. It also exceeds the defense 
spending caps in the Budget Control Act by $85 billion.
  Earlier this week, 356 Members of the House of Representatives voted 
in favor of this spending level. This afternoon, an overwhelming 
majority of this body will do the same. Let this serve as a reminder of 
the troubling state of our military today and an acknowledgement that 
the Budget Control Act-level of defense spending is insufficient and 
unacceptable.
  My friends, for too long, our Nation has asked our men and women in 
uniform to do too much with far too little. Our military's job is hard 
enough, but we are making it harder through continuing resolutions, 
unpredictable funding, and arbitrary spending caps that were put into 
law 6 years ago--before the rise of ISIS, before the current crisis 
with North Korea, before Russia's return to aggression on the world 
stage, and before so many other dangerous developments.
  We have been warned that we cannot go on like this. Earlier this 
year, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, 
warned us, ``In just a few years if we don't change the trajectory, we 
will lose our qualitative and our quantitative competitive advantage, 
[and] the consequences will be profound.'' Secretary of Defense Jim 
Mattis also warned us, saying, ``We are no longer managing risk; we are 
now gambling.''
  We are gambling with risk, and we are gambling with lives. Today more 
of our men and women in uniform are being killed in totally avoidable 
training accidents and routine operations than by our enemies in 
combat.
  My friends, it doesn't have to be this way. The NDAA shows us what we 
could do with an adequate level of defense spending, what we could 
provide for our men and women in uniform, but this legislation is only 
part of the solution. As of yet, we still have no path to actually 
appropriate the money that we are about to authorize. That requires a 
bipartisan agreement to adjust the spending caps in the Budget Control 
Act.
  As we join our colleagues in the House in voting to support $700 
billion for defense, let this serve as a guidepost for our leaders in 
Congress and the White House as they negotiate a budget deal. This is 
the spending level that an overwhelming majority of both the House and 
the Senate believes is necessary to meet current threats and to keep 
faith with our men and women in uniform. After we vote to authorize 
these vital, additional resources for our military, we must all demand 
a bipartisan agreement so that we can appropriate those resources.
  This will require hard work and tough choices, and it will demand 
that we have the courage of our convictions, but in the end, this will 
require much less of us than what we ask of from our men and women in 
uniform. As they so dutifully sacrifice for us every day, let us do our 
part and fulfill our duties to them and to the Nation they serve.
  Mr. LEAHY Mr. President, the fiscal year 2018 National Defense 
Authorization Act, while laudable in its goals, does not comport with 
reality. At roughly $700 billion, the proposed base funding in this 
bill is $85 billion above budget caps that are set in law for Fiscal 
Year 2018 in the Budget Control

[[Page S7278]]

Act, BCA, and $31 billion above the administration's budget request. If 
the authorized funding level were to be appropriated, without changing 
the caps, it would trigger a 12-percent across-the-board sequester of 
Defense programs to bring spending levels back to the Fiscal Year 2018 
levels contained in the Budget Control Act. A sequester of this size 
would hit us in readiness. It would hamper our day-to-day operations 
and maintenance. It would hurt our troops. Our military leaders do not 
support such a sequester.
  If we really want to support our military and the men and women in 
uniform, we must immediately reach a bipartisan budget deal to lift the 
artificial and unrealistically low budget caps that were set in law in 
2011. It is hard to get every Member of this Chamber to agree on 
anything, but on this, we can agree: Sequester has had a negative 
impact on our country that will impact a generation. We need to have an 
honest conversation about what the needs of our country are, both in 
military and domestic spending, and draft our spending bills 
accordingly.
  I do appreciate the work that Senator McCain and Senator Reed have 
put into this massive legislation. While my concerns with the funding 
levels authorized in this bill prevent me from supporting it, I do 
believe it reflects a strong commitment to the programs and policies 
that support our service members and their families. That must always 
be our goal.
  I am pleased that the conferenced bill maintains support for medical 
research that matter so much to our servicemembers and to all Americans 
who benefit from the lifesaving results made possible through these 
programs. I am also grateful for the inclusion of language I authored 
that would pave the way for piloting a preventative mental health 
program for our National Guard and Reserve. Like physical health, we 
know that, with particular training and mental preparation, a person 
can be more resilient mentally when faced with challenges, and building 
that readiness is necessary to maintain the all-volunteer force. 
Progress is already being made with shifting to a preventative model in 
the Special Forces community. I hope to soon see similar progress in 
developing models for the members of our Guard and Reserve.
  This final bill also includes several amendments I proposed to make 
sure U.S. efforts, especially in Afghanistan, are consistent with U.S. 
values. These include a provision aimed at improving the way the 
Departments of Defense and State provide human rights training to 
partner forces, and a requirement to establish a plan on how to improve 
our ability to help foreign governments protect civilians. The final 
bill also authorizes establishment of a position in the Department of 
Defense to oversee its implementation of and coordination with the 
Department of State on the Leahy law for human rights vetting for 
Afghan security forces.
  In 3 weeks and 1 day, the current resolution funding our government 
will expire; yet, instead of sitting down with Democrats to work 
together, just as we did earlier this year to enact the fiscal year 
2017 omnibus spending bill, to find a path forward to raise the budget 
caps and fund our government for the rest of the fiscal year, 
Republicans are focused on a tax cut bill that will add $1.5 trillion 
to the debt. Instead of acting responsibly and in the greatest 
traditions of the Senate, the majority is marching towards another 
partisan fight on the floor on a deeply flawed tax bill that will 
impact every corner of our economy.
  Let's get to work for the American people. For months, have been 
calling for a bipartisan budget deal to lift the caps on both sides for 
both defense and nondefense programs based on parity. It is time to 
complete those negotiations. We owe it to the men and women who serve. 
We owe it to the American people.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be 
considered yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
  The conference report was agreed to.

                          ____________________