[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13940-13948]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 2810, 
which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York, with 
whom I have had the pleasure and displeasure of working on many 
occasions. He is a strong advocate for what he believes in. Yet, over 
the years I have worked with him, his word is good, and when it comes 
to tough discussion and agreement and when agreement is reached, he 
sticks to his word, and that is an important element in our ability to 
work together.

[[Page 13941]]

  I thank the Senator from New York for his efforts in bringing us 
together in a bipartisan fashion. I hope that what we will get done in 
the next few days is an example of what we can do when working 
together, so I thank him for his opening remarks and his advocacy in 
our bipartisan work together.
  I join my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, the ranking member 
of the Armed Services Committee, to speak about the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. I thank the Senator from Rhode 
Island for his hard work on the NDAA. I remain appreciative of the 
thoughtfulness with which and bipartisan spirit in which he approaches 
national security issues. He is a great partner, and this legislation 
would not be possible if it were not for his contributions and 
leadership.
  In June, the Senate Armed Services Committee passed the National 
Defense Authorization Act unanimously, by a vote of 27 to 0. During 
that process, the committee considered and adopted 277 amendments that 
were offered by Republicans and Democrats--some with very spirited 
debate and discussion. I thank each of my fellow members of the Armed 
Services Committee. A vote of 27 to 0 is something we can be proud of. 
I am tremendously proud of the committee's work. The bill, as I 
mentioned, passed unanimously this year for the first time in 5 years. 
I was especially proud of the way in which my colleagues worked to 
overcome differences, of the respect that each member showed for one 
another, and of the common commitment to support our servicemembers and 
help our military achieve its mission.
  Now we are prepared to consider the legislation on the floor under an 
open amendment process that will allow all Senators to have their 
voices heard. I thank the majority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, 
for bringing the NDAA to the Senate floor this week and for doing so, 
once again, under regular order. That means that we will have 
amendments, that we will have debate, that we will have spirited 
discussion, which is what the Senate is supposed to have.
  I am guardedly optimistic that at the end of this, we will complete 
legislation which will be better for having gone through that process 
and for the men and women who are now in harm's way, defending our 
Nation.
  For 55 consecutive years, Congress has passed this piece of 
legislation. That record speaks primarily to the importance of this 
legislation to our national security. I know that all of my colleagues 
would agree that our men and women in uniform deserve our constant 
support and unending thanks for their sacrifice and service. No other 
piece of legislation has a long history of broad, bipartisan support. 
In today's political climate, the passage of this legislation may be 
exactly what we need to remind ourselves of the important work the 
American people sent us here to do.
  The NDAA is a piece of legislation in which this body and Members on 
both sides of the aisle can and should take immense pride. Not only 
does this legislation provide our men and women in uniform with the 
resources they need and deserve, but it is the product of an open and 
bipartisan process that represents the best of the Senate, and it could 
not come at a more important time.
  The threats to our national security have not been more complex, 
severe, or daunting at any time in the past seven decades, and our job 
is to ensure that we have a military capable of meeting those threats. 
For too long, we have locked ourselves into making strategic decisions 
based on budget realities. It is time to start making budget decisions 
based on strategic realities.
  Just consider the current threats to our national security.
  Day after day, test after test, North Korea continues to get ever 
closer to developing the capability to strike the U.S. homeland with a 
nuclear-armed missile and continues to threaten our allies in the 
region.
  While we have made some important gains in the fight against ISIS, 
the campaign to achieve a lasting defeat of terrorist threats and to 
secure our enduring national security interests in Iraq and Syria is 
far from over.
  Iran continues to destabilize the Middle East and seeks to drive the 
United States out of the region.
  We have entered a new era of great power competition as Russia and 
China contest the rules-based liberal world order that is the 
foundation of our security and prosperity.
  Every day we learn more about Russia's asymmetric capabilities--from 
cyber attacks to disinformation campaigns--even as they modernize their 
military, occupy Crimea, destabilize Ukraine, and threaten our NATO 
allies.
  Meanwhile, China continues to militarize the South China Sea and 
modernize its own military at an alarming rate.
  We must not forget that we are a Nation at war, with thousands of our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines deployed in harm's way in 
Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the globe.
  Yet, as dangerous as these and other foreign threats are, perhaps the 
greatest harm to our national security and our military is self-
inflicted. I repeat: self-inflicted. It is the accumulation of years of 
uncertain, untimely, and inadequate defense funding that has shrunk our 
operational forces, harmed their readiness, stunted their 
modernization, and, as every single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
has repeatedly testified before the Committee on Armed Services, put 
the lives of our servicemembers at greater risk. I want to repeat that. 
Every one of our military leaders in uniform has said that because of 
what we have done with the so-called sequestration, it has put the 
lives of our servicemembers at greater risk. Don't we have an 
obligation not to do that?
  Now we are paying the awful price. This summer alone, 42--I repeat, 
42--servicemembers tragically perished in accidents during routine 
training operations. On June 17, seven sailors were killed when the USS 
Fitzgerald collided with a container ship off the coast of Japan.
  On July 10, a Marine KC-130 crashed in Mississippi and killed all 16 
troops on board.
  On August 21, 10 sailors perished when the USS McCain collided with a 
tanker near Singapore.
  On August 25, an Army Black Hawk helicopter went missing during a 
training mission off the coast of Yemen, and one soldier died.
  Just last week in Nevada, two Air Force A-10 aircraft crashed into 
each other. Thank God the pilots safely ejected, but the planes were 
lost--at a cost of over $100 million.
  For the two Pacific Fleet naval collisions, ship repairs are 
estimated to cost more than half a billion dollars.
  The lives lost in each of these incidents were priceless.
  Over the past 3 years, a total of 185 men and women in uniform have 
been killed in noncombat accidents. During this same period, 44 
servicemembers were killed in combat. The bottom line is this, and I 
want all of my colleagues to concentrate on what I am about to say: We 
are killing more of our own people in training than our enemies are in 
combat.
  We were warned about this. We were warned. We were warned by our 
senior defense and military leaders and by many of us in Congress. 
Earlier this year, Secretary Mattis testified that ``no enemy in the 
field has done more to harm the combat readiness of our military than 
sequestration.''
  Secretary Mattis went on to say: ``We are no longer managing risk; we 
are now gambling.'' Now, it is clear that we are not only gambling with 
our ability to fight and win wars. We are also gambling with the very 
ability of our troops to operate safely during peacetime.
  In that same hearing, General Dunford--I will remind my colleagues, 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--described what is at stake 
if we continue down the path of budget cuts, saying: ``In just a few 
years if we don't change the trajectory, we will lose our qualitative 
and our quantitative competitive advantage, [and] the consequences will 
be profound.'' Those are not my words. They are the words of the senior 
general officer in the U.S. military.

[[Page 13942]]

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

                                         Secretary of Defense,

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


    Impacts of a Continuing Resolution Authority in Fiscal Year 2018

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

[[Page 13943]]

     units, at the cost of institutional training and flying 
     hours. Lack of funds to stand-up two F-16 training squadrons, 
     reduced aircraft availability, and inability to grow the 
     force (military and civilian) will further reduce pilot 
     production, leaving the Air Force unable to train the number 
     of pilots necessary for continued readiness recovery. 
     Cancellation of exercises will further degrade pilot training 
     and readiness.
       Readiness and Maintenance: The impacts of a CR are felt 
     immediately, and grow exponentially over time. Although 
     maintenance impacts can be mitigated for some activities 
     operating under a 3-month CR, in areas, such as Navy Ship 
     Depot Maintenance, funding shortfalls result in delays in 
     Naval vessel availability, which may affect subsequent 
     deployment rotations.
       Under a CR, funding reductions will impact all major 
     activities not related to deployed forces, including: depot 
     maintenance, individual and collective training, and 
     munitions procurement. Failure to properly fund readiness 
     restoration initiatives in a stable and consistent manner 
     will impede the recovery of our readiness, which has just 
     begun to see tangible results, and may prove fatal in a 
     future conflict with major-power adversaries. Furthermore, a 
     ready force requires continued and stable investment in our 
     munitions inventory and a CR will not provide the Services 
     the necessary flexibility to procure and develop weapons, nor 
     build sufficient infrastructure to align with the 
     Department's readiness recovery efforts.
       Navy will delay the induction of 11 ships, which will 
     exacerbate the planned ship maintenance in FY18, and will 
     slip ship availabilities into FYI 9, further impacting that 
     plan. FY18 Ship availabilities considered for schedule slip:

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

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

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

[[Page 13944]]

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

[[Page 13945]]

status under the Afghan Allies Protection Act. The legislation also 
authorizes $705 million for Israeli cooperative missile defense 
programs.
  The NDAA authorizes the Secretary of Defense to establish the Asia-
Pacific Stability Initiative, a funding mechanism that has the 
potential to reshape the U.S. approach to this important region, 
reassure our allies and partners, and send a resounding message to our 
potential adversaries about the strength of our commitment. The 
legislation also authorizes $8.5 billion for the Missile Defense Agency 
to strengthen homeland, regional, and space-based missile defense 
systems. In particular, the legislation authorizes funding for up to 28 
additional ground-based interceptors in Alaska, which could be a 
crucial part of our Nation's defense against a potential North Korea 
missile threat.
  The NDAA would allow our military to embark on an ambitious program 
of modernization, one that is desperately needed and long overdue. 
Across the services, this legislation provides funding above the 
administration's request to meet the list of unfunded priorities from 
the Department of Defense. Above and beyond the administration's 
request, the legislation funds 24 more Joint Strike Fighters, 10 more 
F/A-18 Super Hornets, and 5 additional ships for the Navy. The 
legislation also authorizes funding for an increase in end strength for 
the Army and the Marine Corps, adding 6,000 additional soldiers and 
1,000 additional marines.
  At the same time, as part of rigorous congressional oversight of 
defense spending, this legislation demands accountability for results, 
promotes transparency, and protects taxpayer dollars. The legislation 
identifies targeted reductions to wasteful or underperforming programs, 
especially those that heavily rely upon software and information 
technology systems, and reinvests the savings in high-priority needs 
for the warfighters. The goal, as always, is to ensure our men and 
women in uniform receive the capabilities they need on time, on 
schedule, and at a reasonable cost.
  The NDAA makes important efforts to correct the glaring and dangerous 
lack of an effective strategy and policy for the information domain, 
including cyber, space, and electronic warfare. Without a sufficient 
response to previous congressional calls for a comprehensive strategy 
from the executive branch, the NDAA establishes a U.S. policy for cyber 
deterrence, cyber response, and cyber warfare.
  With respect to space, decisionmaking is currently fragmented across 
more than 60 offices in the Department of Defense--I repeat, 60 offices 
in the Department of Defense. Funding for space programs is also near 
30-year lows, while the threats and our reliance on space are at their 
highest and growing. This legislation fully funds our space 
requirements and authorizes additional funding for the military's 
underfunded priorities for space. The NDAA also establishes a new DOD 
Chief Information Warfare Officer--a position that would streamline a 
current bureaucracy that is too often duplicative, inefficient, and 
ineffective, and instead assigns responsibility and accountability to 
one leader for all matters relating to the information environment--
including space, cyber security, electronic warfare, and the 
electromagnetic spectrum.
  Finally, the legislation takes several steps to bolster border 
security and homeland defense. It authorizes $791 million for the 
Department of Defense Counterdrug Programs. It would authorize and 
encourage the National Guard to enhance border security capabilities 
while gaining effective unit and individual training. It continues to 
support the United States-Israel anti-tunneling cooperation program, 
which helps to improve our efforts to restrict the flow of drugs across 
the U.S. southern border.
  This is an ambitious piece of legislation. It is one that reflects 
the growing threats to our Nation. Everything about the NDAA is threat-
driven, including the $640 billion topline, which is based on an 
assessment of the strategic environment rather than an arbitrary 
adherence to budget agreements that have been overtaken by events.
  As we move forward with consideration of this legislation, I stand 
ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass 
this important legislation and give our military the resources they 
need and deserve. We ask a lot of our men and women in uniform, and 
they never let us down. We must not let them down. Their service 
represents the best of our country, and this Congress should always 
honor their sacrifice.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the fiscal year 2018 
national defense authorization bill, which was passed unanimously out 
of the Armed Services Committee on July 10.
  First, I would like to acknowledge Chairman McCain, whose leadership 
on this committee and in this body has been invaluable, indeed 
historic. His contribution, his indefatigable energy, his commitment to 
the men and women who serve us in uniform is something that has shaped 
this legislation and indeed shaped our country profoundly.
  Chairman McCain ensured the committee's thoughtful consideration of 
the President's request, which produced bipartisan legislation that I 
believe will improve the readiness, capabilities, and quality of life 
of our military personnel and their families.
  I wish to highlight some key aspects of the bill, beginning with a 
central national security issue--North Korea. Kim Jong Un is intent on 
developing a nuclear weapon that can be mounted on the head of a 
missile and shot at the U.S. homeland. Unfortunately, there is no set 
of military options that lead to a quick and certain strategy on North 
Korea. Diplomatic engagement that leads to a freeze of North Korea's 
missile and nuclear programs is perhaps our best path forward. In order 
to bring North Korea to the table, we must reinforce our ballistic 
missile defense systems and demonstrate that all options, including 
military options, remain on the table. To that end, this bill 
authorizes additional funding above the budget request to make upgrades 
to our Ground-based Midcourse Defense system to protect the homeland 
and to buy 24 additional THAAD interceptors, a regional defensive 
system that we have deployed to the Republic of Korea.
  This bill also enhances our security cooperation in the Pacific by 
authorizing the Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative, which will help 
strengthen our posture in the region and provide additional support and 
security assistance to our partners and allies.
  Another significant national security issue is the escalating threat 
from Russia's maligned influence activities. The nature and extent of 
this threat was brought home with Russia's interference in our 2016 
elections, but our allies and partners in Europe have been dealing with 
this threat for many years now. This bill contains significant 
resources, through the European Deterrence Initiative and the Ukraine 
Security Assistance Initiative, to reinforce our military presence in 
Europe and build the capacity of the NATO alliance to counter Russia's 
efforts to intimidate and coerce its neighbors.
  The bill takes critical steps to prepare for any attempt by Russia to 
attack our democracy in next year's midterm elections. One provision 
states that it is the policy of the United States to respond, using all 
instruments of national power, to any and all cyber attacks that intend 
to cause significant harm to the Nation, including undermining U.S. 
democratic society. This is a clear message to Vladimir Putin that 
Kremlin influence is unacceptable and will be strongly answered.
  A second provision, which is an amendment I offered that was accepted 
in committee, would require the Secretary of Defense to create a task 
force to integrate all Department organizations responsible for what is 
called ``information warfare'' in order to achieve a unified and 
coherent capability to counter, deter, and conduct strategic 
information operations. The Department of Defense must play a vital 
role developing strategies and executing operations to counter and 
respond to

[[Page 13946]]

Russia's aggression against America and our close allies in Europe.
  But efforts by the Department of Defense are not enough. It is 
essential to have a whole-of-government approach if we are to deal 
effectively with the multifaceted threat posed by Russia, as well as 
China, North Korea, Iran, and others against the West.
  We need to develop comprehensive and specific strategies, taking 
advantage of all the instruments of national power and the 
contributions of friends and allies to deter and respond to aggression 
in all of its forms. We need to bring together the authorities and 
capabilities of law enforcement, homeland defense, the military, and 
the intelligence community to confront cyber threats that recognize no 
organizational or functional boundaries.
  At the same time, we must improve how we work with the private 
sector, which owns and operates the critical infrastructure on which 
our democracy, our society, and our prosperity depend. This bill 
advances our goal of ensuring that we have the strategy, organization, 
and resources necessary to counter the complex challenge posed by 
Russia's maligned activities and the maligned activities of other state 
and nonstate actors.
  This legislation also provides needed authorities and funding for our 
military personnel who are engaged in operations abroad. Through the 
support of our partners on the ground, we continue to make significant 
gains against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. However, our partners require 
sustained support to clear the remaining ISIS strongholds and ensure a 
sustainable security environment going forward. Therefore, this bill 
authorizes $1.8 billion to support the Iraq and Syria Train and Equip 
Programs.
  The bill also includes $4.9 billion for the Afghan Security Forces 
Fund to assist our Afghan partners as they continue to take the fight 
to the enemy while also working diligently to build and professionalize 
their security forces. This is a critical investment for the stability 
of the region and the security of the international community.
  With respect to our services, we have taken steps to improve their 
capabilities, their readiness, and their ability to fight and win. With 
respect to our Navy and Marine Corps, this bill represents a 
continuation of the efforts that are so important for improving their 
ability to address the challenges of this new century. The proposals 
would begin significant efforts to improve the readiness of Navy and 
Marine Corps aircraft, ships, and weapons systems.
  It is clear that high operational tempo, coupled with limited 
resources for training and maintenance, contributed to the recent 
tragedies with the USS John S. McCain, the USS Fitzgerald, and the V-22 
crash off the coast of Australia. First, we must recognize the 
sacrifice of sailors and marines and pay our respects to their families 
for the sacrifices they have given to this Nation. That sacrifice 
continues to impress all of us, with the contribution of everyone 
wearing the uniform of the United States, their dedication to their 
country, and their calls for renewed commitment by ourselves to work 
together to achieve the ends of this great Nation. We must prioritize 
resourcing for our military so we can ensure that our servicemembers 
have access to the best equipment and the best training possible so 
they can conduct these missions safely in spite of the very difficult 
challenges we face.
  This bill provides significant investments in our next-generation 
Virginia-class submarines to ensure our Navy remains dominant under the 
sea. It authorizes multiyear procurement contract authority and 
advanced procurement for up to 13 Virginia-class submarines. In 
addition, the bill adds $750 million for economic order quantity 
material for the Virginia-class Block V multiyear procurement program. 
Meeting today with the Secretary of the Navy, he once again reiterated 
that the Virginia-class submarine program, together with the Ohio 
replacement program, and the ballistic missile submarine program are 
the highest priorities of the U.S. Navy. This bill supports those high 
priorities.
  The Navy will be able to use this funding to expand the industrial 
base across the second-tier and third-tier contractors, anticipating an 
increase in production needed to increase submarine force levels. An 
additional $450 million is authorized to increase support for expanding 
the industrial base or for advance procurement to buy an additional 
Virginia-class submarine in fiscal year 2020.
  The bill provides authority for another multiyear contract for the 
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program and provides the Navy the 
authority to buy as many as 15 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. It also 
adds $1.8 billion to buy a third destroyer in fiscal year 2018.
  The bill also authorizes $1 billion for incremental funding for 
construction of an amphibious ship and more than $1.2 billion for 
several auxiliary ship programs, including five surface connectors and 
one expeditionary sea base.
  With respect to naval aviation, this bill also recommends significant 
increases for multiple programs. Notably, it authorizes 10 additional 
F/A-18 fighters, 10 F-35 fighter variants, 4 additional KC-130J 
tankers, and 6 additional P-8A submarine hunters.
  With respect to the Air Force, the bill also makes significant 
increases in authorization by adding an additional $10.4 billion for 
Air Force programs to purchase 14 additional F-35A fighters, 12 MC-130J 
aircraft, 3 additional KC-46A tankers, and authorizing funding for 
replacement of the A-10.
  With respect to the Army, I am pleased that this bill also makes a 
number of important investments in Army modernization. It authorizes 
full funding for the Department's request for AH-64 Apache attack 
helicopters and UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters. In addition, the 
bill supports the Army's unfunded requirement for additional Apaches by 
including $312.7 million to procure additional helicopters.
  Likewise, the bill fully supports the Army's request for modernizing 
Army ground combat vehicles, including M1 Abrams tanks, Bradley 
Fighting Vehicles, and the Stryker combat vehicle. The bill also 
includes funding to support Army unfunded requirements, including 
recapitalizing Abrams tanks and procuring a fourth upgraded set of 
Double V-Hull Strykers.
  Finally, this bill makes targeted reductions in Army network 
modernization programs, since Army Chief of Staff General Milley plans 
to make a decision soon on the way forward with regard to these 
programs. Once a decision has been made, it is my hope that the Army 
will provide the committee with a detailed plan for network 
modernization, to include details on the funding necessary for this 
approach.
  Our Special Operations Forces remain at the ``tip of the spear'' of 
our efforts to counter violent extremist groups. The bill fully funds 
the U.S. Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, and includes an increase 
of approximately $85 million to help address unfunded requirements for 
additional intelligence collection, precision strike, undersea 
mobility, and communications capabilities. Additionally, the bill 
includes new authority designed to support the ability of our special 
operators to work with partners to counter irregular warfare, or so-
called gray zone challenges, posed by our adversaries.
  The bill authorizes funding to modernize our triad of nuclear-capable 
air, sea, and ground delivery platforms--the bedrock of our defense 
posture against an existential threat. The B-21 heavy bomber is 
authorized at the requested level to continue engineering, 
manufacturing, and development to be fielded in the mid to late 2020s. 
This heavy bomber will replace the dependable but aging B-52s, which 
were built in the 1960s. The committee is working with a team at the 
Government Accountability Office for rigorous oversight on the new 
bomber program. When the B-52 retires in the 2040 timeframe, its 
airframe will be approaching 100 years old, and the grandchildren of 
the original pilots will be flying the plane.
  Turning to the area of undersea deterrence, in order to maintain a 
sea-based deterrent, the current fleet of 14

[[Page 13947]]

Ohio-class submarines must be replaced starting in 2027 due to the 
potential for hull fatigue. By then, the first Ohio submarine will be 
46 years old--the oldest submarine to have sailed in our Navy in its 
history.
  The third leg of our triad, our land-based ICBMs, will not need to be 
replaced until the 2030s. We have authorized continued development of a 
replacement for this responsive leg of the triad, which acts as a 
counterbalance to hostile ICBMs.
  I know there is concern about Russia's violation of the Intermediate-
Range Nuclear Force Treaty, which is a foundational arms control treaty 
from the late 1980s. This committee has received classified briefings 
on the actions taken by Russia, and they are indeed serious. I urge all 
of my colleagues to request these classified briefings if they have not 
done so. While some have called for the United States to perform 
developmental testing of systems that are noncompliant with the treaty, 
this committee has pursued a cautious and measured approach of looking 
at what kinds of research within the confines of the treaty we can 
perform if called upon to counter this threat. Again, let me stress 
that I do not support withdrawing from the treaty, and our best 
approach is to bring the Russians back into compliance.
  With respect to energy use, which is an important aspect to the 
bottom line in the operational capabilities of our military, the bill 
contains several provisions that enhance how the Department pursues 
energy resilience, which directly supports readiness and mission 
assurance of our warfighters. Additionally, this bill contains a 
requirement for a defense threat assessment and master plan on climate-
related events and a comprehensive strategy and technology roadmap on 
how the Department can more effectively use water.
  In the area of science, technology, and innovation, I am pleased that 
this bill authorizes increases in funding for science and technology 
research efforts by over $375 million above the President's request, 
including a total of $2.3 billion for university research programs. 
These programs are critical to ensuring that our military retains its 
technological battlefield superiority in areas like cyber security, 
unmanned and robotic systems, high-energy lasers, space, and 
hypersonics. The bill streamlines the ability to access expertise and 
technologies in our Nation's universities and small businesses, whose 
expertise and innovation is the cornerstone of the technologies on 
which our military depends.
  Additionally, it continues efforts to strengthen the capabilities of 
our defense labs and test ranges, including removing redtape that 
inhibits their effectiveness, and supporting their efforts to build 
world-class technical workforces. The bill also authorizes two new 
innovation offices, the Strategic Capabilities Office and the DIUx 
Silicon Valley office, with special authorities to hire the unique 
program management talent they need to execute their innovative 
activities.
  In the area of acquisition reform, I am pleased that the bill 
continues efforts to streamline procurement practices to support the 
Department's efforts to obtain the best goods, technologies, and 
services on a timely basis at fair and competitive prices. The bill 
includes provisions from Senator Warren and Senator Blumenthal to 
ensure that the Pentagon works with contractors to safeguard worker 
conditions. The bill also makes significant and needed changes to the 
way the Department buys, evolving toward more agile and effective 
commercial acquisition practices. These new practices should enable the 
Department to build and buy the most modern software and IT for our 
weapons systems, platforms, and business systems. The bill also 
includes a provision from Senator McCaskill that will provide more 
transparency and require more deliberate planning in the use of service 
contractors in order to control this rapidly growing part of the 
Pentagon budget.
  In the area of Pentagon management, I am pleased that the bill 
includes provisions to improve financial stewardship to help the 
Pentagon get a clean audit opinion on its financial books. The Pentagon 
has been trying to obtain a clean audit opinion for 27 years, and the 
continual failure to do so calls into question its ability to steward 
the large funding increases proposed in this bill transparently and 
efficiently.
  This bill accomplishes much on behalf of our servicemembers and the 
Department of Defense. It authorizes a 2.1-percent pay raise for all 
servicemembers and reauthorizes a number of expiring bonus and special 
pay authorities to encourage enlistment, reenlistment, and continued 
service for Active-Duty and Reserve component military personnel. The 
bill permanently extends the Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance--
scheduled to expire next year--provides $25 million for supplemental 
impact aid, and $10 million in impact aid for severe disabilities, 
including $5 million available for the Secretary to direct to schools 
to address areas with higher concentration of disabled military 
children.
  This legislation also enhances military family readiness by 
addressing the shortage of childcare workers and increasing flexibility 
for military families undergoing permanent change of station.
  A provision in the bill also addresses the Marine United situation by 
making the nonconsensual sharing of photos and videos of an 
individual's private anatomy or of sexually explicit conduct involving 
the individual a criminal offense under the UCMJ, even when the initial 
taking of the photo or video was consensual.
  Once again, this bill includes authorization for a needed package of 
healthcare reforms, including modest increases to working-age retiree 
healthcare cost shares, while ensuring that the cost share remain far 
below those required by civilian plans. It also requires the Department 
to establish a Medicare Advantage demonstration program for TRICARE For 
Life beneficiaries that will achieve better healthcare outcomes for 
beneficiaries with chronic health conditions as well as cost savings 
for the beneficiaries and for the Medicare TRICARE Programs.
  During floor consideration of this bill, Chairman McCain and I would 
like to offer an amendment that will authorize a new BRAC round. I know 
this topic concerns many of our colleagues, but I believe it is in 
necessary to allow the Department to gain efficiencies and savings by 
shedding excess infrastructure. In drafting this amendment, Chairman 
McCain and I worked to include the lessons learned and address the 
common critiques from previous BRAC rounds. The amendment would use the 
most recent National Military Strategy and an elevated force structure 
to determine if there is any excess capacity. Any recommendations 
submitted by the Secretary would have to be certified by CAPE, require 
third-party validation by the GAO, provide greater transparency to 
communities by publishing on the Federal Register, and any list of 
closures would have to be affirmatively approved by the President and 
Congress. Again, I know this is a difficult issue, but I believe we 
must make difficult decisions as stewards of our Department of Defense 
and taxpayers' dollars, and I look forward to the debate.
  To my disappointment, the bill also includes a series of provisions 
that add unnecessary redtape to successful medical research efforts 
funded by the Pentagon. The program has funded research over the years. 
These programs have led to new treatments for burn victims, new 
transplant procedures, and rehabilitation techniques for TBI and PTSD 
patients, and a score of other medical innovations. These 
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs have been 
independently reviewed by experts at the National Academies of Science 
and found to be world class, scientifically rigorous, innovative and 
effective. At a time when the President is proposing drastic and 
harmful cuts to NIH's medical research budget, I do not think we should 
intentionally throw bureaucratic hurdles in the way of researchers 
trying to cure debilitating and life-threatening diseases. I hope we 
can remove these provisions before we pass the bill.

[[Page 13948]]

  I am also concerned about several provisions in this bill that would 
weaken important protections for American defense manufacturers, 
including small businesses in my State that supply advanced 
technologies and systems to the military. I note that existing sourcing 
laws include provisions that protect the Pentagon taxpayers from paying 
unreasonable and unfair prices, and these laws serve to help protect 
American jobs. We need to ensure that we have an innovative, reliable, 
trusted, and secure domestic industrial base as we grow the military 
and respond to contingency operations and surge production 
requirements.
  Finally, I would like to say a few words about the funding for 
defense. The bill reported out of committee includes $610.87 billion in 
discretionary spending for defense base budget requirements and $60.2 
billion for Overseas Contingency Operations. It also includes $21 
billion for Department of Energy-related activities, resulting in a 
topline funding level of $692 billion for discretionary national 
defense spending.
  While many of us agree that the Department requires the resources, 
these funding levels do not adhere to the spending limits mandated by 
the Budget Control Act of 2011. If enacted and funded at these levels, 
sequestration would be triggered, thereby wiping out about $88 billion 
through across-the-board cuts. This would be a very complicated 
situation. We would be giving money on one hand and taking it back with 
the other, literally. We must come to address the insufficient funding 
caps in the BCA, and we must do so for both defense and nondefense 
accounts.
  Since the Budget Control Act was enacted in 2011, we have made 
repeated incremental changes to the discretionary budget caps for both 
defense and nondefense accounts. We have done so in order to provide 
some budgetary certainty to the Department of Defense and also to 
domestic agencies. I believe that if defense funds are increased, 
funding for domestic agencies must also be increased because they, too, 
are suffering from the same severe budget that the Defense Department 
has suffered over the last several years. In addition, at this point, I 
think all of us acknowledge our national security is broader than 
simply the accounts in the Department of Defense. It is the FBI, the 
Department of Homeland Security, State Department, and many other 
agencies that contribute to our national security.
  In fact, in the wake of Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma, we have 
seen the Centers for Disease Control dispatched, EPA individuals 
dispatched to evaluate, in the Harvey situation, threats to the 
environment, and in case of Irma, to try to prevent the threats by 
being deployed before the storm actually struck. So our national 
security, our public safety, all these issues involve not just the 
Department of Defense but the whole array of government enterprise. We 
understand that the well-being of our Nation--and what our men and 
women in uniform are fighting for--depends on funded and functioning 
domestic agencies, not just the Department of Defense. For example, as 
I have said before, with these two hurricanes, tens of thousands of 
Americans have needed help, these Federal agencies have come forward, 
and I will mention them: the Centers for Disease Control, Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal 
Communications Commission, the Small Business Administration, the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Social Security Administration. 
Those are just a handful. Providing for the security of Americans 
requires the whole of government, and it should all be funded fairly. 
We should remain responsible stewards of taxpayers' money while also 
ensuring we provide sufficient funds to meet the needs of our Nation.
  Let me conclude by once again thanking Chairman McCain and my 
colleagues for working thoughtfully and on a bipartisan basis to 
develop this important piece of legislation. I would also like to thank 
the staff who worked tirelessly on this bill throughout the year. I 
look forward to a thoughtful debate on the issues that face our 
Department of Defense and national security.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The majority leader.


                       Remembering Pete Domenici

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

                          ____________________