Transcripts For CSPAN2 U.S. Senate Debates Defense Authorization Bill 20170914

Am proud to be a supporter to work to protect their Vital Mission as they work for us. This years ndaa authorizes money for a new base military complex bringing the airlift wing into compliance with the department of defense Antiterrorism Force Protection requirements to support their c130 mission. For all these reasons, i urge my for all 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 worlds only superpower guaranteeing not only our own freedoms but others around the world. As we consider amendments on the floor, i urge my colleagues to reject the new brac proposal introduced by chairman mccain and Ranking Member reed as mccain amendment 933. I say with all due respect and again i want to thank them for all their work on this bill. Its been an extraordinary accomplishment toll bring it as to bring it as far and to hopefully within the next few days get it over the finish line. I support the intent. The intent is good. Our military is capitalizing on future savings where they exist, and it must continue to do so. And base closings will be necessary. Thats a stark fact of life. But i cannot support the brac effort that 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 kind of 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 that my colleagues here represent. As a senator representing one of the last military bases in new england, i am deeply concerned that there may be harm to Civil Military relation caused by closing bases in our region and harm to our National Security. 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 c130 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 i was involved afterward 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 c130 or other planes like it would have been a disgraceful outcome, and we succeeded in reaching al 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 the military value that delayed investments and home porting of submarines there. Given the importance and prominence of our submarine fleet today as well as the 17 million the state has invested in this base, 17 million invested by the taxpayers of the state of connecticut since 2005, it is inconceivable that we would close this asset. It is home to 16 submarines as well as 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 a third of what was initially projected. Just 10 billion. Thats the 2005 brac verdict. It costs more than it saved. Simply put, brac cuts capabilities. We can never get those capabilities back in a time of global uncertainty and 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 im 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. Im concerned that this amendment employs a force structure baseline that has not been adequately assessed by the department of defense. That for 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 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 that closures will have on their individual states. Lets be very blunt. This measure will exacerbate the roll of politics in this process, not diminish it. While an independent commission is by no measure completely above politics, removing it will aggravate the role that parochialism and politics play in deciding the future of military installation. 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. Deciding the fate of entire military bases should also be a power that we keep from our selves. 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 that we insulate it as much as possible from the currents and forces of special interests. I admire and respect the time and effort that our Committee Leaders have devoted to this amendment. If its defeated, i will work with them to address the issues that ive 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 with thanks to the chairman of the committee, senator mccain, and the Ranking Member, senator reed, for all their great work on this very, very important measure which i hope will be passed shortly. Thank you, madam president. And i yield the floor. A senator madam president . The presiding officer the senator from alaska. Mr. Sullivan are question in a quorum call . Thanks to the chairman. The presiding officer we are not. Mr. Sullivan madam president , this week were debating the National Defense authorization act of 2017. Very important. Members of both sides have contributed to this very important legislation that we pass every year. It funds our military, authorizes spending, training. Its really one of the most important things we do here in the United States senate. Like many others, i want to thank the members of the Armed Services committee. I have the privilege of serving on that committee. Chairman mccain, Ranking Member reed for all the hard work that theyve put into this and all the members of the committee and how seriously we take this responsibility. And youve heard the discussions 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 serving in the military and a lot of it is due to readiness. In fact, madam president , the past eight years the u. S. Military has seen its budget decline by almost 25 . A huge decrease when we know, just pick up the paper, see whats going on in the world when we know the National Security threats to the United States have dramatically increased. So decreasing budgets, increasing National Security challenges. And this ndaa begins the muchneeded process of changing that. Id like to focus on one such threat that we need to address right now. Its at the doorstep of our great nation and what the ndaa is doing about that specifically, that threat. The threat is north Koreas Nuclear intercontinental ballistic activity and capability. Madam president , as you know, that has now become a threat to literally every city in the United States, not just frontline states like mine, the great state of alaska, or hawaii that are closer to asia than any other place in the united stat states. This threat is now on the doorstep of every american city. Now, for years a lot of the quoteunquote experts and intel officials were saying, hey, dont worry about this. Theyre trying but this threat is a long way off, a long way off into the future. Some of those 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 to launch an intercontinental Ballistic Nuclear missile aimed at the United States of america. There was a disturbing article recently in the washington post, the lead paragraph of which stated, quote, 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 this will dramatically shrink the timeline for when north korea could strike north American Cities with atomic weapons. This new assessment was leaked by someone within the pentagons Defense Intelligence agency, and it shaves almost two full years off what we thought north koreas capability was. Right now the threat is here. And think about this threat with regard to whos leading north korea, an unstable dictator whos shown that hes not rational. Madam president , let me go into a little bit more of the threat here. When you look at the different regimes, kim ill song, kim jongil and kim jongun, the current dictator of north korea in just five years since hes come to power, hes condubbed more conducted more missile tests, more than 80 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. Five years. Way more than his father and grandfather ever did. And while several of these missile tests have been failures, weve obviously seen clear successes. In fact, while Many Americans were celebrating the july 4th holiday, our patriotism, our liberty, our military, kim jongun launched a successful test of an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. And on the nuclear side, weve seen activity even more recent recently, allegedly a test a Hydrogen Bomb of a 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, in a very unstable regime, they are making very significant progress. Thats the threat. Very real, on our shores, led by an unstable dictator who has threatened to use these weapons. So 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 of the homeland of the United States, of our cities. And thats what this National Defense authorization act does. Now, unfortunately, madam president , 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, quote, a trend of high ambition followed by increasing modesty. The high ambition has been largely driven by the threats to our nation, but the decreasing the modesty component has been largely a function of decreasing budgets. Of the Missile Defense agency. In fact, from 2006 to 2016, the Missile Defense agencys budget has declined nearly 25 . Homeland Missile Defense testing has declined by nearly 83 . When our adversaries are testing and advancing, weve been going in the opposite direction. Well, madam president , im glad to say that this years National Defense agency ndaa reverses this longterm trend of homeland Missile Defense neglect. Earlier this year with a number of my colleagues in this body, we introduced the advancing americas Missile Defense act of 2017. This was a bill that we worked on for months the 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 americas Missile Defense act would dramatically increase our capacity for what are called our groundbased missile interceptors. Up to 28 more interceptors and require our military to look at fielding 100 more, up to 100 to fully protect the United States. Second, our bill would advance the technology to not only have more groundbased missile interceptors, but the kill vehicles on top of those missiles, the bullets from which the missiles can shoot additional warheads. This is technology thats advancing, but it needs to advance much more quickly. Third, our bill looks at integrating 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 the groundbased system back home in the homeland of the United States. Our bill looks at integrating these systems with a spacebased sensor, to have an unblinking eye in terms of the technology that can track and shoot down missiles coming into the United States and integrate with regional defenses and our homeland defenses. And, fourth, our bill focuses on more testing 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. Were also advancing Missile Defense in different areas of the world. Now, madam president , as i mentioned, we worked on this bilformonths. One we worked on this bill for months. One of the key elements that im most proud of is the strong bipartisan support its gotten in the senate and in the house. Importantly, when we introduced it as part of the ndaa markup, we had over onequarter of all the members of the u. S. Senate were already cosponsors democrats, republicans from literally every region of the United States. And this is a first and Important Development in a long time with regard to Missile Defense. Unfortunately, for years thats been viewed as a partisan issue, not a bipartisan issue. What we were trying to do as we developed this bill is saying, this shouldnt be partisan. This is a threat that every city in america is going to have to deal with. Lets Work Together and get a bipartisan bill together. I was proud when the wall street Journal Editorial Board wrote about this bill and emphasized that bipartisan nature. A few months ago they wrote, the advancing americas Missile Defense act has united conservatives, such as ted cruz and marco rubio, and liberal democrats such as gary peters and brian schatz, no fall fete in the trump era. The amendment would be a down payment on a safer america in an evermore 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. And thankfully thats what the ndaa does this year. In 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. And again i want to thank senators mccain and reed and other members of the committee for the way in which the broader ndaa came together. We debated this bill and the vast, vast majority of our bill on advancing americas Missile Defense is now in this ndaa. One of the many reasons why im encourage all of my colleagues in the senate to vote to pass it. Madam president , Something Else that i think is important for my constituents to know but for all americans to know is the role that alaska plays in americas Missile Defense. For those of my colleagues who sit on the Armed Services committee, theyve heard me say this many, many times. Theres a famous quote in congressional testimony back in the 1930s by the father of the air force, general billy mitchell. And 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 nations Missile Defense. If there is a Missile Launch 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 f. Greeley, alaska, has 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 has done so well by the members is done so well by the members of the Alaska National guard. So, madam president , this bill does a lot. The ndaa this year that were debating finally takes seriously this Important Mission of Missile Defense. And as ive noted, it does a lot to advance it. We have a couple additional amendments that were working on, hopefully are going to get passed out of the managers package, that would make even more advances to Missile Defense. Were going to continue to work those. Hopefully well 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, ace noted earlier shall that, as i noted earlier, was one of high ambition following decreasing modesty today we need action. The threat warrants it. The American People demands it. The Congress Must step up and deliver it. Thats whats happening in this ndaa along with many other important, critical provisions for our nations military. And i encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of passage of this important bill. Madam president , i ask unanimous consent that the following statement appear in a separate place in the record. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Sullivan madam president , mica mcginnis began working for me two years ago as my military legislative correspondent. Actual slitting with me right now. Today is his last day in my office. Now, it is a sad day for everybody in my office, but mica is going on to do bigger and Better Things with that unit i just talked about, the Alaska National guard. While in my office, hes done amaze being 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 in 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. Going to head off for training, looking for a pararescue member of the military, some of the toughest training we have in the u. S. Military, but i know he is going to do very well. So, mica, thanks for all youve done, all the things youve gone for alaska. You will always youve done for alaska. You will always be part of our family. Good luck you to and your family. Madam president , i yield the floor. Mrs. Gillibrand madam president . The presiding officer the senator from new york. Mrs. Gillibrand i rise to urge my completion to vote for a bipartisan amendment, number 1051, to protect Transgender Service members 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 Service members and for agreeing to support it here on the floor tamed the amendment, which i was so proud to write with my republican colleague from maine, would prohibit the department of defense from discharging members of the military for denying them reenlistment opportunities because of their gender identity. It is essential that this congress does not break faith with these brave Service Members who have served their country honorably 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 interest, to value and respect their service, to give them the tools and resources they need to defend our country. Kicking out thousands of Service Members simply because of their gender identity doesnt make our military stronger. It makes our military weaker. It doesnt save taxpayer money. It wastes taxpayer money. We have spent millions recruiting and training these highly skilled Service Members. And i want to be clear to those who misunderstand our United States military members. To those who somehow think our military cannot handle diversity among its Service Members, 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 dont ask, dont tell, which i was pride to work on from the republican the senator from maine once again. And here once again this argument is wrong. Our military is strongest when it represents the nation it serves. So rather than shrinking the talent pool and telling patriotic americans that they cannot serve, we should be doing everything we can to encourage them 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 are brave enough to join the United States military, men and women who are 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, to even die for it, to suggest these brave, tough and selfless Transgender Americans somehow dont belong in our military is harmful to our military readiness and deeply insulting to our troops. Dont tell me that u. S. Air force Staff Sergeant logan ireland who deployed to afghanistan has earned numerous commendations since the ban on Transgender Service was lifted should be kicked out of our military. Dont tell me the young recruit like u. S. Marine aaron wixman who left college to work in the Field Artillery and worked diligently during with the chain of command during his transgender transition should be kicked out. Do not tell me that military commander drake breeman, has deployed 11 times and won the navys highest logistics award and now shapes our military policy at the pentagon, dont tell me he should be kicked out of the military. Any individual serving in our military today who meets the standard should be allowed to serve, period. So i urge my colleagues to join mean and 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. I yield the floor. A senator madam president. 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 i. M. F. 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 a longstanding treaty commitment, and that would make the world a more dangerous place. No one is more concerned about russias recent aggression than i am. From their annexation of crimea to their meddling in our election and the elections of our allies, russias behavior must be met with a firm and unequivocal response. Last month i traveled to the baltics to see firsthand the threat that russia poses to nato allies and to meet with senior u. S. Army officials and local political leaders. And 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. Thats what our amendment is about today. It isnt about playing politics. Its about smart, strategic, informed toughness that advances the interests of the United States of america. The i. M. F. Treaty negotiated, signed by president reagan nearly 30 years ago, erased an entire class of Nuclear Weapons from the european continent. It eliminated groundlaunched missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers, roughly 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. Russias 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 asiapacific 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 any time 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 significant nag to the world that we have by significant nalling to the world that we have the lost faith in the 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 dualcapable, road mobile groundlaunched 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 i. M. F. 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 thats exactly how our allies and our 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 i. M. F. 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, were 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 that we hold dear. Supporters claim that a new missile is not only needed to compete with russia, but also to counter a more as as as assertive china which is not bound by the agreement. I see 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 i. M. F. Treaty all together. Vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general 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 kneejerk 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 the secretary of std Work Together to address a few critical questions. First, what is the status, capability and threat posed to our allies by russias new groundlaunched Cruise Missile . Secretary mattis has stated that the russian treaty violation would not provide russia with, quote, a significant military advantage. Is this still the secretarys assessment . General silva has said that, quote, given the location of the specific missile and the deployment, the russians dont gain any advantage in europe. Is this still the generals 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 groundlaunched intermediate range missile which 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 commitment and additional active defenses. Thats in addition to the other available tools of National Power that could strengthen rather than weaken the i. M. F. Treaty. The pentagon advocated for just such a multipronged approach, writing that, quote, russias returned compliance with its obligations under the i. M. F. Treaty remains the preferable outcome which argues against unilateral u. S. Withdrawal or abrogation of the i. M. F. Treaty at this time. With the pentagon reviewing options, Congress Proposed playground approach of if you build a groundbased missile, ill build one too, is not the Strategic Response of generals and statesmen. In fact, the administration has said this new program would, quote, unhelpfully tie them to specific type of Missile System which would limit potential military response options. At a time when d. O. D. , state, and treasury are, quote, developing an integrated diplomatic military and economic Response Strategy to maximize pressure on russia, we must let our military leaders and our diplomats do their jobs and inform congress before we act. And 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. Now the last time the u. S. Weighed a landbased Nuclear Escalation in europe, millions of citizens took to the street in protest. And in the 21st century, that called call for Nuclear Disarmament of the european continent has only grown. As general silva recently acknowledged we dont even know whether any of our european allies would permit the deployment of a nuclearcapable groundlaunched missile on their territory. During the cold war, russian deployments of landbased 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 that is unshaken by russias provocations. So thats it. Three mustask questions deserving of musthave answers. What is the nature of the threat . What is the pentagons recommended military response . And what action unites us with our nato allies . Until we have those answers, heading down the path of destroying the i. N. F. 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 i. M. F. 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 School Children spend their days learning to read and write, not practicing duckandcover drills. To build a world where families live in hope for what tomorrow may bring, not in fear that a flash flood 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, and i want to 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 adversaries treaty violation by violating the same treaty ourselves. Thats not how working in good faith in the International Community is done. He is right. I also want to acknowledge senator cardin, the Ranking Member on the Senate Foreign relations committee, 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, and i want to thank senator reed, the Ranking Member of the Armed Services committee, for his strong support on this. We are all grateful for your 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 i. M. F. 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. Thank you, madam president. I yield. Mr. Mcconnell madam president. The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell 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 were 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. The senate will vote on a critical h. U. D. Nomination after lunch, and its 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 will be the nomination of the solicitor general. This is a person in the Justice Department who argues before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court october term begins shortly. Madam president , i ask consent that at 1 00 p. M. Today, the senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of calendar 109 as under the previous order, and that following the disposition of the nomination, the senate resume legislative session and consideration of h. R. 2810. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 105, noel francisco. The presiding officer the question is on the motion to proceed. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And the motion is agreed to. The clerk will report the nomination. The clerk nomination department of justice. Noel j. Francisco of the district of columbia to be solicitor general of the United States. Mr. Mcconnell i send a cloture motion to the desk. The presiding officer the clerk will report the cloture motion. The clerk we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of noel j. Francisco of the district of columbia to be solicitor general of the United States, signed by 17 senators as follows. Mr. Mcconnell i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i move to proceed to legislative session. The presiding officer the question is on the motion. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And the motion is agreed to. Mr. Mcconnell madam president , i have seven requests for committees to meet during todays session of the senate. They have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. The presiding officer duly noted. The presiding officer the senator from arizona. Mr. Mccain madam president , i thank the majority leader for all the support and assistance that we have been given on this issue. And of course, i regret that we have finally had to turn to cloture. But i believe that the fact is that we have incorporated over 100 amendments offered by senators of both parties, and it means the ndaa becomes stronger as a result of including these amendments. Second, the process took a step in the right direction. Senators were able to have their voices and opinions heard and reflected in this legislation. Mr. President , i wish we had never had to come, madam president , i wish we had never had to come to voting for cloture, but id also like to say that we have made enormous progress. We have had debate, we have had amendments, we have had votes. All of these are the, quote, regular order that some of us have been arguing for at the United States senate are in accordance with the constitution of the United States. So i am very appreciative for the cooperation of members on both sides, including senator reed, and i believe we can be proud of our product. It really came down to about four amendments that we could never get agreement to move forward on. That compared to the over 100 amendments that we were able to adopt. I still wish that we would have been able to go completely through this process without having to resort to cloture, but i do want to thank members on both sides as we approach cloture for their cooperation, for their involvement, for their engagement, and for their dedication to the men and women who are serving us in the military. So i look forward to the next hours that well have debate and hopefully some amendments proposed and invoke cloture and have it completed sometime early next week. But the work needs to be done and will be done, accomplished before then. So i thank all my colleagues for their participation, i thank them for their engagement and involvement. Im proud of this product here which comes after hundreds of hours of hearings, of negotiation, of discussion, of debate because it proves that the First Priority of members on both sides of the aisle is the men and women in the military and their ability to defend the nation. I yield the floor. A senator madam president . The presiding officer the senator from rhode island. Mr. Reed madam president , i want to join the chairman in noting the progress we have made with respect to 100 amendments. They have been bipartisan. They have been carefully weighed by the staff. We are still continuing to Work Together to see if there are additional amendments that we can incorporate before we conclude this bill. I think the amendments have strengthened the bill. I think it does reflect a bipartisan effort. I think also, too along with the chairman, we would have liked to have been able to do more, frankly, have more debate, more votes, but i think at the end of the day were going to have a National Defense authorization bill which responds to current threats, responds to the stresses and demands on our personnel across the globe, and also be well positioned to go into conference and hopefully improve further this legislation in the conference process. I will once again say this is in large part the result of chairman mccains leadership, creating an atmosphere of bipartisan cooperation, of thoughtful debate, and doing it in a way which brings out the best in all of us. So i thank him for that. With that, madam president , i would yield the floor. The presiding officer under thes previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. The clerk nomination, housing and urban development, Pamela Hughes patenaude to be deputy secretary. The presiding officer there will now be who minute 40 minutes of debate equally divided by the two sides in the usual form. Soo the senator the presiding officer the senator from oregon. Mr. Merkley the first three words in the constitution is the most important, we the people. Its written in big, bold beautiful letters so that even from across the room, if you cant read the details, you know what our nation is all about. As president lincoln summarized, a nation by the people, for the people, and of the people. We have seen this year quite an assault on this vision of government, by and for the people. It came from President Trumps plan, to Rip Health Care from millions of americans in order to deliver billions of dollars to the very richest among us. Plan after plan, version after version, wiping out health care for 24 million, wiping out health care for 23 million, wiping out health care for 32 million, and so on and so forth. Always over 20 million and always delivering this enormous gift of hundreds of billions of dollars to the richest americans. You know, you look at this from a little bit of distance and its just incredible to imagine that this could have occurred, that any member a Single Member of our nation would possibly have supported such an outrageous diabolical, dangerous, damaging plan to the quality of life for so many people across our nation. It wasnt just that it ripped health care from more than 20 million people, it wasnt just that it delivered billions of dollars to the wealthiest among us. It also ensured that those with preexisting conditions wouldnt be able to get care. It was also that it would have estimated raised our premiums an estimated 20 for those who were able to secure insurance. If one set out to design the worst possible Health Care Plan you could ever imagine, you probably couldnt up with one as bad as President Trump and the Republican Team came up with. It seems incredible that were still debating the basic premise on whether health care should be part of a Standard Foundation for families to thrive here in this century. Every other developed nation understands that health care is so essential to quality of life, so essential for our children to thrive, so essential for our families to succeed. They make sure that just by virtue of living in a country you have that health care. I have to salute the millions of americans who weighed in to say that this diabolical plan needed to be dumped. They filled our streets and overflowed our in boxes and flooded our phones. They made it perfectly clear that health care is a basic human right, not a privilege reserved for the healthy and the wealthy. And i certainly agree with them. We decided collectively that we were not going to allow this diabolical plan to undo the progress we made. We made significant progress with obamacare. After decades of essentially being unable to change the insurance rate, we made significant progress. Well, there we are with a big drop in the uninsured rate, a big increase in the number of people who have access to health care. But were not in that place yet where this number drops to zero. We still have 10 of our country that doesnt have insurance. And the costs are still too high and the deductibles and copays are too high and one out of five of americans can still not afford their prescriptions. And in addition we have this incredibly complicated set of Health Care Systems. We have medicare and medicaid. We have onexchange, we have offexchange, we have the Childrens Health Insurance Program, we have workers compensation, we have selfinsurance, be and we have a multitude varieties of health care through the workplace, some covering just the individual, some covers the entire family, some covers a small percent of the health care costs, some more. Some are so complicated some are not even sure what the Insurance Company should pay. So we found in this conversation with americans about health care that americans weighed in very strongly about the stresses, about the challenges of ordinary americans to secure health care. Its an ongoing lifelong effort. Do you have an employer who covers you but not your children . Can you get them on to the Childrens Health Insurance Program . Do you have an Insurance Plan at work that you have to contribute to but the costs are so high of contributing that you really cant afford it so you optout. Or perhaps you qualify for medicaid, for those states that have expanded medicaid, yet you gained a small increase in your pay and now you dont qualify. In the middle of the year can you apply to the health care exchange, will you have tax credits applied to you . It is continuous application, it is continuous change. Its continuous stress. Why do we make it that hard . My 36 town halls a year, one in every county in oregon. Mostly in red counties because most of the counties are red counties. I have had people coming out yearning for a simple, seamless system that says just by virtue of being an american you have health care when you need it and are you wont end up brac rupt. Bankrupt. What is that vision all about . Is it about taking an existing model, one that has worked so well for seniors, a model for medicare. People would come to my town halls and say, im just trying to stay alive until age 65 so i can be part of the wonderful medicare plan. This is a well known commodity. I heard some of my colleagues mocking it the last few days. Certainly they should go out and have town halls. Maybe they should talk to seniors about how well this system works. Maybe they should roight that the recognize that the overcost is much less than private Insurance Health care. That is more than a fifth of our Health Care Dollars simply wasted, a waste that disappears with medicare for all. This is the type of Health Care System that addresses and changes this enormous fractured and stressful system. We currently spend twice as much as other developed nations per person on health care, twice as much as france, twice as much as canada, twice as much as germany, and so the list goes on. And yet the health care we receive provides less health in america than in those countries. We should be ashamed that our infant mortality rates are higher even though we spend twice as many dollars per capita as those other countries. So its clear that theres significant room for improvement. And, by the way, theres so many opportunities to move in this direction. Weve laid out this medicare for all plan. And i salute my colleague, bernie sanders, and the additional cosponsors. There are 17 senators who have said we have cosponsors of this because we know it addresses the fractured stressful nature of our current system, we know it is more Cost Effective than our current system, we know it will lead to peace of mind than our country system. And shouldnt peace of mind be what we are all about . That is the peace of mind that if your loved one gets ill or injured they will get the care they need. The peace of mind if your loved one is in an accident theyll get the care they need and you wont end up bankrupt. Its time for america to have this conversation, and its my intention certainly to have this conversation with the citizens of oregon. I encourage my colleagues to have this conversation with their citizens. How can we move to a system which you can stop worrying about whether or not you will get the care you need, your loved ones will get the care they need, and you wont end up bankrupt when you are sick or injured. That is the goal. Let us have that conversation, america. And keep consider pushing toward making it a reality. Im proud to sponsor this bill and i certainly am proud to fight for quality, Affordable Health care for every single american because it is a basic human right. Thank you, mr. President. A senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from massachusetts. Mr. Markey mr. President , before i start my remarks on the dangers of nuclear war, i want to take a moment to congratulate the watertown Massachusetts High School field hockey program. Up until this past week the watertown raiders had not lost a single field hockey game since november 12, 2008. For nearly nine years the raiders have been truly perfect. They are 184game winning streak was our nations longest in High School Field history. Their leader, Eileen Donahue is one of the most historic in high school athletics. To all the former and current parents, coaches and players, congratulations. Go watertown raiders, congratulations on a historic streak of victories. Now, on the issue of Nuclear Weapons Nuclear Weapons give the president of the United States an unpress ep unprecedented and awesome power. Nuclear weapons are the most Destructive Force in human history. Yet, under existing laws, the president of the United States possesses unilateral authority to launch them. If the president wants to, he has the power to initiate an offensive Nuclear War Even if there is no attack on the United States or its allies. This is simply unconstitutional, undemocratic, and simply unbelievable. Such unconstrained power flies in the face of our constitution which gives congress the sole and exclusive power to declare war. While it is vital for the president to have Clear Authority to respond to Nuclear Attacks on the United States, our forces, or our allies, no u. S. Person should have the power to launch a Nuclear First strike without congressional approval. Such a strike would be immoral, it would be disproportionate, and it would expose the United States to the threat of devastating Nuclear Retaliation that could endanger the survival of the American People and human civilization. If we lead potential enemies to believe that we may, quote, go nuclear in response to a conventional attack, then we create the very pressure that enkiewrntion them encourages them to build Nuclear Arsenals and keep them on high alert. This increases the prospect of nuclear war. That is unacceptable. We have the worlds most powerful conventional arsenal, the Strongest Air force, the largest navy, and the most capable army and marine corps. We have the most powerful Nuclear Arsenal to deter Nuclear Attacks. We dont need to be the first to attack with Nuclear Weapons to deter others from launching attacks on us or our allies. Nuclear weapons are meant for deterrence and not for war fighting. As president reagan said, a nuclear war cannot be won, it must never be fought. Th thats why i introduced legislation earlier this year and an amendment to the National Defense authorization act, which we are now considering to put an appropriate check on the american president s unilateral authority to launch a Nuclear First strike. Let me be clear. I am not proposing we restrict the president s authority under the constitution to launch a Nuclear Attack against anyone whos carrying out a Nuclear Attack on the United States, our territories, or our allies. Under article 2 of the constitution, the United States president has authority to repel sudden attacks as soon as our military and intelligence agencies inform him that such an enemy strike is imminent. What i have proposed does not change that. But what i am proposing is that we take a commonsense step to check Nuclear First use by prohibiting any american president from launching a Nuclear First strike except when explicitly authorized to do so by a congressional declaration of war. Unfortunately, the need to cement this into law is more important now than it has ever been, and thats because today we have a president who is engaged necessary la toar, reckless and scary rhetoric with north korea, a nation with Nuclear Weapons. President trump has threatened fire and fury and has declared our military, quote, locked and loaded and ready to attack north korea. What seems like a daily basis, President Trump uses the kind of inflammatory rhetoric backed by his Unchecked Authority to launch Nuclear Weapons that highlights the very situation i described earlier. The United States threatens military action that could include Nuclear Weapons. North korea responds with increasingly provocative behavior. And the world faces an ever increasing risk of miscalculation that can lead to nuclear war. Ive been talking about no first use and the need to provide an appropriate check on any american president for a long time. But President Trump and his twitter account have made it painfully clear why the need for a no first use policy exists. No human being should have the Sole Authority to initiate an unprovoked nuclear war, not any american president including donald trump. As long as that power exists, it must be put in check. We need to have this debate in the United States of america. We dont need an Accidental Nuclear war. We dont need Nuclear Weapons to be used by the United States when we have not been attacked by Nuclear Weapons. And if any president would want to use that power, then he should come to congress and ask us to vote on the use of Nuclear Weapons in the event we have never been attacked by them. Thats the least that i think the congress should do. We have abdicated our responsibility to declare war in the constitution for far too long. It actually began with the korean war. Now we face the prospect of a second korean war. If Nuclear Weapons are going to be used and we have not been attacked, it should be this body that votes to give the president the ability to use those weapons. Mr. President , i at this point yield back the balance of my time and question the presence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call mr. Brown mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from ohio. Mr. Brown thank you, mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that dispense with the quorum call. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Brown thank you, mr. President. I rise to speak today about the nomination of Pam Patenaude to be the deputy secretary of the department of housing and urban democratic, h. U. D. Ms. Patenaude comes to this n. O. M. Nomination with valuable experience in the field of housing and Community Development and a history of Affordable Housing advocacy. In her previous work at h. U. D. , she helped administer the departments Disaster Relief efforts following hurricane katrina. While i dont agree with ms. Patenaude on every avenue of housing policy, i respect her government service. Her recent work to raise awareness about the Affordable Housing shortage facing so many challenges. I agreed with her in her testimony in front of the Banking Committee that, quote, as nation we must recognize that housing is not just a commodity but a foundation for economic mobility and personal growth. Thats why i was so troubled that during her nomination hearing, ms. Patenaude defended the administrations terrible budget for the agency that she has been nominated to help lead. At present it would cut more than 7 billion 15 from h. U. D. s budget, right in the midst of a shortage of Affordable Housing, about which she so articulately spoke. This budget cut would eliminate programs like Community Development block grants and the home program. These grants help our cities, they help our small towns to repair their infrastructure, to retrofit homes for seniors and people with disabilities, to combat homelessness among families, veterans, and People Struggle with Mental Illness and substance abuse. Just last Week Congress approved new cdbg funds to speed up Disaster Recovery assistance to communities upended by hurricanes harvey and irma. So ms. Patenaude came in front of this committee and defended those budget cuts, programs she helped administer, programs for which she has advocated, but doing apparently the dirty work for the administration and for the h. U. D. Secretary, she agreed with this budget. This budget would help devastate Public Housing. It would this budget would devastate Public Housing, it would cut funding for Major Repairs by some 70 again, in the face of substandard Affordable Housing, substandard housing, unavailable shortages shortages Affordable Housing t would cut funding for repairs by 70 . It would expose more families to poor building. My wife and i live in cleveland, ohio. Ten years ago in 20007, our zip code had more foreclosures than any zip code in the United States of america. Within not very great distance of my home, there is block after block there are block after block of homes that are in need of repair, rentals and People Living in the homes they own. Far too much devastation crying out for some help from this h. U. D. Budget. Yet this administration turns their back on them. It reduces funding for lead hassard control and healthy housing grants. Secretary carson, who i voted for he didnt know a lot about housing when he took this job but he knew what exposure to lead meant to babies and infant yet this budget cuts lead hazard control and healthy housing grants. I know in my city, the Public Housing department has said that where homes are generally 60, 70 years old, virtually every single home has high toxic levels of lead. Do we not care about what we sentence that next generation of children to by doing nothing about the leadbased paint in the homes, the lead around the windows, the lead around the pipes, all that we have a moral responsibility to do something about . These cuts to h. U. D. Programs have generated bipartisan concern about their effects on our communities, including concerns raised in fact by republican members on the Banking Committee. I am vietnaming against ms. Patenaudes im voting against ms. Patenaudes nomination because i cant support the direction the president s budget proposals for our families, communities. She a. Pledged allegiance. In spite of her background and skills and advocacy in the Department Years ago and outside the department since, in spite of her advocacy for some of the right things shes pledged alleyians to that disastrous vision allegiance to that disastrous vision, those horrible cuts to h. U. D. I hope she uses her experience and knowledge to convince others in the administration of the importance of the federal governments role in housing and Community Development. Too often in this administration we see officials who come to their agencies with valuable experience. They quickly set it aside to push an agenda that does not serve working families in appalachia, ohio, in inner city ohio, in affluent and poor suburbs. We have two crisis one on the gulf coast, one stretching from florida to the Virgin Islands that we must tackle. We have a less visible crisis as well, not because of flooding or hurricanes, but because decent, Affordable House something beyond the reach of more and more americans. Ms. Patenaude is intelligent, shes got good insight. She knows had her heart what this budget would mean to a whole lot of americans who work fulltime, who have generally low incomes, 8, 10, 12 an hour and simply cant find affordable, clean, decent housing. Her support nor that budget for that bucket, it will make the her support for that budget, it will make the problem worse. Thats why i vote no and ask my colleagues to vote no on the nomination. I ask unanimous consent to place the remainder my comments in a different part of the record. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Brown thank you, mr. President. Last week 143 million americans, half of our country, had their personal information exposed through no fault of their own. Were talking about names and dates of birth and Social Security numbers and addresses and probably much more. Equifax, one of three huge Data Collection companies in our country, may they make their money they make their money off this i in fact. They failed to protect it. If a student at bowling greenfield or a family fails to make that Monthly Payment for Student Loan Debt or their monthly home payment, equitax dings them on their credit report. Yet equitax, even when they allowed the breach of 400,000 employees of one company, kroger, one our best companies domiciled in ohio, they just dont seem accountable when that happens. This is the worst example so far weve seen. I spoke yesterday on the phone with bill of hamilton, ohio, whos one of those 143 million americans whose personal data was exposed to criminals, to somebody who could use this information, use this data on literally up to 143 million americans. He and his wife have retired, worked hard to pay their pills, have excellent credit. Went to the equifax website, discovered his information may have been breached. He talked about how worried he was. He talked about after all his familys hard work, after years of following the rules that someone could get access to his information and shred his Credit History. This is a Company Whose job it is to gather this data and to protect this data. And they failed. Without being held accountable. I am worried for folks in ohio like bill. I am really worried for Service Members around the country whose private information might be compromised. A Service Members Credit History isnt just important when they want to buy a home or open up a new credit card. For a service member, a Credit History damaged by hackers can mean losing their security clearance and maybe their job along with it. These patriotic men and women move around the country, around the world. Theyre not especially wellpaid. Their families rely on good credit to get housing and jobs wherever our military chooses to send them. Life for military families is stressful enough. I know that from write Patterson Air force base, one of most important bases in this country. I know that from meeting with these families. I know that when i see the kind of Consumer Protections that the federal Consumer Bureau has provided to these members when so often Financial Companies try to prey on these members, who i say are not paid well. One of the members of the family overseas and families struggle at home without one of their parents being present and with the generally low income they make. They sacrifice enough without their also having to work about corporations. This companys breach putting them at ring. At risk. Thats why i filed an amendment to the ndaa that would provide Service Members with crucial Consumer Protections. The bill requires the credit reporting agencies like equifax and transunion and exsubpoena, the expirian to implement a way for all Service Members to look to be able to lock down their credit reports if they think theyre at risk. Credit freezes are currently available in some states. There is no national standard. There are often charges for starting and stopping a freeze. And it can be hard to figure out who should who they should even contact. This amendment would create a standard, simple, and free process for Service Members to protect their Credit History. Theres so much more in this bill that will matter to Service Members. We have an opportunity, mr. President , right now to move quickly, make sure this breach does not put our military men and women at risk. I yield the floor. The presiding officer question curse on the question occurs on the nomination. Under the previous order is there a sufficient second . There appears to be. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote