John McCain

"I have been in the Senate and the House for a long time. I have never seen an act of blatant partisanship with disregard for the men and women who are serving in the military than what the President is doing as we speak. For 53 years, Congress has fulfilled its constitutional duty to provide for the common defense by passing the National Defense Authorization Act. For 53 consecutive years, both bodies have passed, and the President has signed into law, the National Defense Authorization Act. In all my years, I have never witnessed anything so misguided, cynical, and downright dangerous as vetoing the Defense authorization for reasons that have nothing to do with defense--nothing to do with defense. Presidents throughout history--Republicans and Democrats alike--have recognized the importance of this bill to our national defense. In the more than 50 years since Congress has passed an NDAA, a National Defense Authorization Act, the President of the United States has only vetoed the act four times. In each case, the President objected to an actual provision in the bill, and each time the Congress was able to find a compromise that earned the President's signature."

"Let's be clear. The President's veto of this year's bill is not over any of its policies, it is over politics. In the President's case, politics has taken precedence over policies, and when we are talking about the lives of the men and women who are serving this Nation in uniform--disgraceful. For the first time in history, the Commander in Chief will sacrifice national security for his larger domestic political agenda. This veto will not resolve the spending debate; it will not stop sequestration. That is something that can only be done through the appropriations process, not a defense authorization bill. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have answered the call to protect our Nation. They want and need support. They don't care what budget category that support comes from. I wish to point out we authorized exactly the amount of money the President requested. This is a Washington game. All the men and women who are serving in the military care about is that their mission is fully resourced. With this veto, their mission will not be fully resourced. We will put their lives in greater danger because of this political game of the President--holding the military men and women hostage for his agenda to fund the IRS and the EPA."

"The legislation the President vetoed today authorizes the overall amount for defense that he requested, every single dollar of it. By making clear that he will "not fix defense without fixing non-defense spending," the President of the United States puts defense and the men and women in the military on the same level as the IRS. The President is using our military--using our military--as leverage to fight a battle that the Defense authorization bill cannot accomplish. At a time of mounting threats around the world, it is disgraceful. It is disgraceful the President would refuse to authorize for our troops the resources they need to prepare for and engage in vital missions around the world and that deliver some of the most significant reforms to the Pentagon in more than 30 years."

"By vetoing this legislation, the Defense authorization bill, let's be clear what the President is saying no to. He is saying no to pay increases and more than 30 types of bonuses and special pays for service members, saying no to more portability of military health plans and greater access to urgent care facilities for troops and their families, saying no to enhanced protection against military sexual assault, saying no to significant reforms to a 70-year-old military retirement system that would extend retirement benefits to over 80 percent of service members, saying no to the most sweeping reforms to our defense acquisition system in nearly 30 years, saying no to a ban on torture once and for all, saying no to $300 million in lethal assistance for the Ukrainians to defend themselves against Russian aggression, and saying no to countless other important provisions that are greatly needed to combat the growing threats we see around the world today. Perhaps, most importantly, the President of the United States is refusing to sign a bill at a time when--as our top military commanders and national security experts have testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee--the world has not seen greater turmoil since the end of World War II. So, my friends, here is the context. Thanks to the President's failed policies, the results of leading from behind, the results of a policy of "Don't do stupid stuff," we now see a world in a state of turmoil--the likes of which we have not seen since the end of World War II."

"On a bipartisan basis, we passed a defense authorization bill that has monumental consequences to the future security of this Nation, the present security of this Nation, and the welfare and ability of the men and women who are serving this Nation and their ability to defend this Nation, and the President--because he wants an increase in domestic spending, has vetoed it. Never have I seen such irresponsibility on the part of a Commander in Chief. There have been Presidents I have disagreed with. There have been Presidents I have had spirited debates with--but never ever in history has there been a President of the United States who abrogated his responsibilities, his constitutional responsibilities, as Commander in Chief. I say shame on him today, and this is a shameful day. The House will vote to override this veto on November 5. I strongly urge my colleagues to reverse this dangerous action and put the interests of our military and national security ahead of politics. Our men and women serving around the world, many still in harm's way, deserve nothing less."

"I spend a lot of time with the men and women who are serving in the military, including members of my own family, and they are not uninformed. They are very intelligent. They watch what we do--we, their elected representatives. Their voters trust us to defend them, care for them, to give them the weapons they need, the benefits they need, and the care they need when the wounded come back. They rely on us. They are going to see, as we watch Vladimir Putin on the march, as we watch the success of ISIS, as we watch Ukraine being dismembered, as we watch China commit more aggression in the South China Sea and fill in islands--and now? Now this Commander in Chief decides that this is a time to veto an authorization bill because he doesn't think there is enough domestic spending. It is a sad day, a very sad day. It is a sad day for America but most of all it is a very sad day for the men and women with whom we entrust our very lives and our security. It is a sad day."

"Mr. President, I come to the floor for a very unusual reason this afternoon. It has to do with an attack on for-profit colleges by a longstanding campaign by certain groups and individuals who have been opposed to for-profit colleges. They were able to destroy one out in California, and they are continuing to attempt to make those attacks work on other for-profit colleges. This is a very unusual situation because what we are seeing take place are conclusions being drawn and action being taken--in this case by the Department of Defense--without due process, as a result of pressure exerted by a Member and Members of the Senate, which then has resulted in action without due process."

"We sent these letters to the Veterans' Administration and to the Department of Education requesting that they notify us if further action is taken against the university. We sent these letters because we feel that the Department of Defense's decision and threats of termination of participation by the University of Phoenix in this program were done simply because the Senator from Illinois sent a letter to the Department of Defense highlighting an outside investigative report--an outside investigative report--suggesting wrongdoing on the part of the University of Phoenix."

"Let's be clear again. There was no due process here. That is what I want--due process. If the University of Phoenix is guilty of some wrongdoing, I want to be one of the first to make sure the proper penalties are enacted. I do not--I repeat--I do not believe that on the basis of a single investigative report, that action should be taken. With this in mind, I was stunned to hear once again that the Senator from Illinois is insisting that the DOD not reverse its decision. Given his own involvement in the matter, his suggestion that the DOD not reverse its decision just because Members of this body conveyed concern about the merits of its probationary decision and the fundamentally unfair way that the DOD made it is, in fact, ridiculous. The whole matter arose from the Senator from Illinois pressuring the DOD to take adverse action against the university. His case was based not on an affirmative finding by the Department that the university engaged in any newly identified acts of substantial misconduct but a report by an outside investigative group. He then sent letters to the Department of Education and Department of Veterans Affairs asking for similar action."

"After further review of the DOD's decision, it is my opinion that, No. 1, it relies on overly technical violations of a memorandum of understanding that the university signed with the Department of Defense regarding its participation in the Tuition Assistance Program; No. 2, it fails to reflect the actions the university has taken to correct and identify violations; and No. 3, it is based in part on unsubstantiated allegations associated with inquiries for information by other agencies, not findings of new violations. In other words, with our letter, we asked Secretary Carter to review a lower level decision to put the university on probation where even the DOD conceded, in its very letter to the university announcing its decision, that "the University of Phoenix has responded to infractions with appropriate corrective action at this time.""

"With respect to the university's proposed violations of DOD policies on the use of official seals or other trademark insignia with "challenge coins," we understand the university has remedied this infraction. But it is worth noting that traditional public or nonprofit universities, including Southern Illinois University, utilize similar challenge coins with impunity. I remain skeptical that the DOD is evenly and uniformly enforcing its policies on all institutions of higher education and appears to be unfairly singling out certain institutions of higher education based on a letter from the Senator from Illinois. With respect to the university's apparent failure to obtain specific approval for conducting partnership activities at several military installations, it is our understanding that the university obtained approval from the respective base leadership to sponsor, sometimes at their request, partnership events. While the university may have technically violated the MOU's requirement that the university coordinate with the education services officer, those who have served in the military readily understand and respect the chain of command. Approval from the base leadership should be sufficient to meet the requirements of the MOU regardless of the education service officer's involvement. By the way, the education service officer did not turn this down; they just were not consulted."

"In the absence of significant, substantiated findings regarding new, uncorrected violations, the Department of Defense decided to suspend the university from participating in the Tuition Assistance Program based on document requests by two government agencies that are not, in fact, the Department of Defense and does not indicate a violation or admittance of guilt. We call on our service men and women to serve and protect our interests, often at great cost to themselves and their families. Yet the Senator from Illinois suggests that they are not capable of choosing their own path when determining their postsecondary educational needs. By the way, on a technical violation of the budget agreement, the Senator from Illinois was one of the leaders in voting against the Defense authorization bill, which was the result of many years of work."

"Mr. President, I was pleased to vote today in support of S.J. Res. 22, which would nullify the Environmental Protection Agency's recently finalized clean water rule. Just yesterday, I voted in support of a bipartisan bill, S. 1140, authored by my colleague, Senator John Barrasso, which would have forced EPA to pull the rule. Unfortunately, that bill did not receive the 60 votes necessary under Senate rules that are needed to pass. The resolution passed by the Senate today is supported by hundreds of national and local organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Homebuilders Association, to name a few. While I understand that the White House has threatened to veto this resolution if it reaches the President's desk, it is still important that a majority of Congress voice their opposition to the EPA rule as Federal courts continue to weigh its legality. Americans around the Nation are lining up against the EPA clean water rule because of its economic cost, the regulatory impact, and the uncertainty it engenders among State and local governments, businesses, and consumer alike. The rule itself bypassed Congress by redefining the types of water bodies under the Clean Water Act that EPA has the authority to regulate. EPA pushed forward without regard for State and local environmental protection laws, which is partly why about a dozen State attorneys general, including from my home State of Arizona, have won injunctions in Federal court against the EPA rule."

"The EPA claims that the rule only allows the Agency to halt activities that disturb small, environmentally sensitive streams and wetlands. But when you dive into the rule's lengthy publication, you will find that EPA is proposing to expand its jurisdiction over roughly 60 percent of all waters of the United States and can also capture certain irrigation ditches, stock ponds, and even dry desert washes. Farmers, housing, construction jobs, and other activities will all suddenly find themselves under the thumb of EPA bureaucrats. The EPA will claim it has written waivers into the rule for these industries, but there is growing consensus that the waivers are so unclear and conflicting that nobody believes they hold any water. The EPA's rulemaking process itself was so closed off from outside input and peer-reviewed science that it is clear to any reasonable observer that EPA had misjudged the economic damage their rule will inflict on small business, farms, and local governments around the country."

"The EPA rule is especially bad news for Arizona agriculture and homebuilding sectors which, combined, account for most of all economic activity in my State. If a farmer wants to build or repair a canal, the EPA rule could block it. A community that wants to build a school or a church near a dry wash will have to beg EPA for a permit. Under the rule, the EPA can even fine a private property owners tens of thousands of dollars if the Agency thinks water historically flowed across their land even when there is no visible evidence. Regardless whether or not the President vetoes this resolution, I will continue to oppose the EPA clean water rule. I am a proud cosponsor of Senator Jeff Flake's similar bill, S. 1179, the Defending Rivers from Overreaching Policies Act, DROP Act, which would direct the EPA to pull its rule over its poor, nonscientific definition of "navigable" water bodies. We will continue to push forward with this and other legislative initiatives and will watch closely to see how the courts handle the EPA rule."

"Madam President, 70 years ago, a group of American leaders forged the rules-based international order out of the ashes of World War II. Those who were there recall that they were "present at the creation." We may well look back at 2015 and realize we were present at the unravelling. We were present at the unravelling. At the beginning of this year, President Obama was still committed to degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL. He had warned: If left unchecked, ISIL could pose a growing threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States. In 2015, that is exactly what happened in Paris and San Bernardino, and it will not be the last. I promise my colleagues that under this administration, with the present policy and lack of strategy, there will be other attacks on the United States of America. I deeply regret having to say that, but I owe it to my constituents and Americans whom I know and respect to tell them the truth. More than 1 year into the campaign against ISIL, it is impossible to assert that ISIL is losing and that we are winning. And if you are not winning in this kind of warfare, you are losing. Stalemate is not success."

"We asked the witnesses before the Senate Armed Services Committee the following question: Is ISIS contained? It is not. ISIS is not contained, contrary to the statements--bizarrely--made by the President of the United States literally hours before the attack on San Bernardino. This year our Senate Armed Services Committee held several hearings specifically focused on the threat of ISIL, including three hearings specifically with Secretary of Defense Ash Carter. We heard about nine lines of effort. We heard about three "arrrghs." We never heard a plausible theory of success, nor a strategy to achieve success. What do I mean by that? There is no time line on when Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, will be taken. There is no strategy to take Raqqa. Raqqa is the base of the caliphate. Raqqa is the place where the attacks are being planned and orchestrated. We have news reports that they are developing chemical weapons in Raqqa. This is the first time that a terrorist organization has had a base, a caliphate, from which to operate. What has happened? They are expanding globally."

"By the way, during these debates, I will comment a little bit on it--that those who are against any intervention cite Libya as the case for not going in. Facts are a stubborn thing. The fact is, Muammer Qadhafi was at the gates of Benghazi and was going to slaughter thousands of people. We brought about his downfall and walked away. If we had walked away from Japan and Germany after World War II, it would have collapsed. If we had walked away from Korea, where we still have 38,000 troops, it would have collapsed. If we had walked away from Bosnia, it would have collapsed. I am telling you, my colleagues, we walked away. This President and this administration did not do the things necessary after the fall of Qadhafi to build a democracy, and the people of Libya wanted it, and I can tell you that for sure because I was there. One of the great tragedies of the 21st century is our failure to act in a way to help the Libyan people transition from all of those years of being under a brutal leader."

"By the way, he was also responsible for the deaths of Americans in a bar in Berlin and an airliner being shot down. Yet we should have left him in power? Sure we should have. ISIL is operating in Lebanon, Yemen, and Egypt, and other radical Islamic groups, such as Boko Haram in Nigeria and al-Shabaab in Somolia, have pledged allegiance to ISIL. This appearance of success only enhances ISIL's ability to radicalize, recruit, and grow. There has been some progress. I was recently in Iraq, and the operation to retake Sinjar was important. Iraqi forces, as I mentioned, have closed in on Ramadi for weeks. They haven't finished the job. Our counterterrorism operations are taking a lot of ISIL fighters off the battlefield in Iraq and Syria. All of this represents tactical progress, and it is a testament to our civilian and military leaders, who are outstanding, as well as thousands of U.S. troops helping to take the fight to ISIL every day. I would like to point out that significant challenges remain."

"As a direct result of President Obama's decision to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq and squander hard-won American influence, the Iraqi Government is weak and beholden to Iran. I tell my colleagues, have no doubt what the dominant influence in Iraq is today: It is the Iranians. There was no more vivid example of this than when it was reported that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Abadi turned down Secretary of Defense Ash Carter's offer of new military assistance, including the use of Apache helicopters and Special Operations forces to help recapture Ramadi."

"I met with Prime Minister al-Abadi in Iraq. He is a good man. He knows he needs this help, but because of the dominating influence of Iran and Shia militias in Iraq, he turned it down anyway. General McFarland, one of the greatest generals I have met--he is up there in the category of David Petraeus--is leading the fight against ISIL. He reacted with a very interesting comment. He said: "This is a very complex environment. It is kind of hard to inflict support on somebody." What General McFarland is saying is that because of the Iranian dominant influence, the Iraqis, as a body, are reluctant to accept the help they need to retake the second largest city in Iraq. The second largest city in Iraq, Mosul, is under ISIS control, and he knows full well that Apache helicopters and Special Operations forces could help him do that. But who is telling him not to? The Iranians. When I was there, we met with the Prime Minister of Iraq, Mr. al-Abadi, and he said: If you Americans come and you lose one pilot or one plane, you will leave. That was the opinion of the Prime Minister of Iraq, and one of the reasons--along with the Iranian influence--is because there is no trust or confidence of the United States in Iraq or in the region."

"It comes as no surprise that the training of Iraqi security forces has been slow. The building of support for the Sunni tribal forces has been even slower. ISIL captured Mosul in June of 2014, and at the end of 2015, ISIL still controls the second largest city in Iraq. How do you think the families of those brave Americans who have sacrificed themselves and those individuals who are still at Walter Reed feel after the sacrifices they made and the victories they won? Now, of course, we see all of that is gone--just a glimmering--thanks to the President of the United States withdrawing all of our troops in the mistaken belief that if you pull out of wars, wars end. They don't end. It is hard to talk to the Gold Star Mothers. Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that ISIL is still making $1.5 million a day in oil sales. Worse, Reuters reports that ISIL has made more than $500 million trading oil, with significant volumes sold to--guess who. Guess who ISIL is selling oil to. The government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It is hard to make some of this stuff up, and it gets a little complicated."

"We are now making nice--and I will talk a little bit more about it later--with Bashar al-Assad and their stewards, the Russians and the Iranians. Meanwhile, Bashar al-Assad is buying oil from--at least $1.5 million a day--from ISIL. Even as an Oval Office speech and a Pentagon photo op failed to reassure the American people, this administration has doubled down on its indecisive approach to ISIL, using limited means and indirect ways to achieve aspirational ends on a nonexistent timeline. The administration now admits we are at war with ISIL--wonderful--but proceeds at every turn to minimize any American role in fighting and winning that war. America has never waged anything we have called to war and then so profoundly limited our role in the hope that some other force will emerge to win it for us. The administration says we cannot "Americanize" the conflict."

"I also want to point out that the President has a unique and really dishonest approach to those of us who have said for a long time that we have to have more involvement and predicted what would happen. Unfortunately, we have been wrong by saying, yes, the "popoffs"--as he called us in a speech from the Philippines--want to send hundreds of thousands of troops. That is a total falsehood. I will repeat again what we have been asking for for years, and that is another 5,000 or so Americans on the ground in Iraq and a multinational force led by the Sunni Arab countries with European participation--I would hope that people like the French would join in a--about 10,000 of 100,000-person force to go to Raqqa and take them out. As long as Raqqa exists, they will be able to export this evil throughout the world, including to the United States of America. There is no plan by this administration to retake Raqqa. There is no strategy, and that is, indeed, shameful."

"The war against ISIL was Americanized when ISIL inspired terrorists who murdered 14 Americans on our own soil in San Bernardino. This attack should be a wake-up call and we need a strategy, as I mentioned. In Syria, there is no plausible strategy to achieve this goal on anywhere near an acceptable time line. We were briefed that it would be a year before they retake Mosul. There is no time limit on how they could even approach regaining Raqqa. There is no ground force that is both willing and able to retake Raqqa, nor is there a realistic prospect of one emerging anytime soon. The Syrian Kurds could take Raqqa but won't, and the Syrian Sunni Arabs want to but can't, partly due to our failure to support them. Meanwhile, the administration has continued its inaction and indifference and has allowed Bashar al-Assad to slaughter a quarter of a million people. Have no doubt who is responsible for these millions of refugees; his name is Bashar al-Assad, the godfather of ISIS. He is the one who has barrel-bombed thousands and thousands of his people. Bashar al-Assad used poison gas and crossed the redline, we might recall. It is Bashar al-Assad who continues the butcher of his own people."

"My friends, the last time the Russians had influence in the region was when Anwar Sadat threw them out in 1973. Now they are back. Now they are major players in the Middle East. This is the headline from the Associated Press yesterday: "Russian Airstrikes Restore Syrian Military Balance of Power." The airstrikes of the Russians have taken out significant capabilities of the moderate resistance--not ISIS but the moderates whom we had trained and equipped and we refused to protect."

"Let's get this straight. Assad will be tolerated to continue to barrel bomb and slaughter innocent people. "However unpalatable his conduct of the war..." This kind of Orwellian understatement not only obscures the truth, but it cripples the conscience. My friends, it cripples the conscience. Bashar Assad's conduct of the war, the barrel bombs, chemical weapons, slaughtering women and children, not only killed one-quarter of a million people, it is what gave rise to ISIL to start with, and it is what fuels them still. Secretary Kerry seems not to understand that fact. While in Moscow searching for "common ground" with Russia on Syria and Ukraine, Secretary Kerry said--and I am not making this up; I am telling my colleagues, I am not making this up--"Russia has been a significant contributor to the progress" the world has made on Syria."

"Unfortunately, America's troubles in 2015 were not contained in Iraq and Syria. Despite conditions on the ground, President Obama elected to withdraw roughly half of the U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the end of next year. Do you know the President of the United States, even when he announces a buildup, announces a withdrawal. So he sends the message to any potential enemy or any enemy we are engaged with: We are going to build up now, but don't worry, we are going to pull out. We will withdraw. So what happens? Here we are. The Pentagon says violence is on the rise in Afghanistan. The AP report says "Violence in Afghanistan is on the rise, according to a new Pentagon report to Congress that says the Taliban was emboldened by the reduced U.S. military role and can be expected to build momentum from their 2015 attack strategy." It is inevitable, I say to my colleagues, there will be greater violence in Afghanistan, an increase in Taliban activity, and--I am sorry to say--ISIS, who is already establishing a foothold there, will increase their presence. Meanwhile, the Iranians, in their attempt at hegemony, will provide weapons to the Taliban."

"I don't give a damn what the President of the United States wants to do or what anybody else wants to do. We will not waterboard; we will not torture... We will not torture people... It doesn't work, my friends. It doesn't work. If you inflict enough pain on somebody long enough, they're going to tell you whatever they think you want to hear to have it stopped... There are accomplished interrogators who can gain the confidence of the suspect and gain all the information that they could possibly want... My God, what does it say about America if we're going to inflict torture on people? It makes it hard for us to make the argument about the moral superiority of our way of our government and our way of life."

"Mr. President, briefly, the Senator from South Carolina and I discussed this announcement that Russia will begin withdrawing some military forces from Syria. It obviously signals Vladimir Putin's belief that he has bombed and killed enough of the opponents of the murderous Assad regime to assure Assad's survival. For 4 years, this administration--this President--stood by as the Assad regime slaughtered nearly half a million people in Syria. Then, when Assad appeared weak, it watched as Putin intervened militarily and protected his brutal regime, in a move that the President described as Putin going into a "quagmire." Well, apparently now Vladimir Putin is leaving that "quagmire," and he is leaving a solid Bashar Assad in a position of strength. He is leaving thousands of dead moderate opposition that he has indiscriminately bombed, and the United States has their begging bowl out, asking and pleading that they somehow reach some agreement again in Geneva."

"It is really embarrassing to watch this President and this Secretary of State as they continue to beg Vladimir Putin and his stooge Lavrov as they continue to place Russia in a position of influence they have not had since Anwar Sadat threw them out of Egypt in 1973. They now have a major role to play in the Middle East. They have a military base. They have a naval base. They have upgraded airfields, and they have now solidified Bashar Assad's position in power. Is there anybody who believes that Russia will agree to an arrangement that Bashar Assad or his stooge doesn't remain in power? Of course not. Aren't we tired of begging Vladimir Putin? Aren't we tired of watching the United States and the young men we trained and equipped being bombed by Vladimir Putin and killed and murdered? Don't we sometimes grow a little tired of that? It is no wonder that the United States of America has no standing and no influence in the region."

"The tragedy of all of this, I would say to my friend, is that when the United States of America was required to stand up because of the commitment of the President of the United States if the Bashar Assad regime had used chemical weapons and slaughtered--it is the gruesome pictures that you and I have seen--and then backed off, that was one of the seminal moments that American credibility disappeared. Here we are now still refusing to arm, train, and equip young men to fight against Bashar Assad and, in fact, making them pledge that they would only fight against ISIS. It is not ISIS that is barrel-bombing them. It is not ISIS that is dropping chemical weapons. It is not ISIS that has brought in thousands and tortured and beaten and killed. ISIS is our enemy. ISIS is evil. But to somehow excuse the behavior of Bashar Assad with the Russians' indiscriminate bombing is one of the most disgraceful chapters in American history in my view."

"For the last 5 years, we have been writing a shameful chapter in American history. To sum all of this up, leading from behind doesn't work. If America leads from behind, somebody else is going to be in front. If the United States leaves conflicts and creates vacuums, then bad things happen. Look at a map of the Middle East in January of 2009, when this President came to the Presidency of the United States, and look at that map now--the way ISIS has metastasized, the way hundreds of thousands have been murdered and millions are on the march as refugees. We still have apologists for this leading from behind, a policy which is described as "Don't do stupid stuff." This is the result of leadership that has left the scene in a way that we have not seen since the 1930s, in the days of Neville Chamberlain and "peace in our time.""

"Madam President, it is my pleasure to rise with my friend and colleague from Rhode Island to speak about the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017. For 54 consecutive years, Congress has passed this vital piece of legislation, which provides our military servicemembers with the resources, equipment, and training they need to defend the Nation. The NDAA is one of the few bills in Congress that continues to enjoy bipartisan support year after year. That is a testament to this legislation's critical importance to our national security and the high regard with which it is held by the Congress. Last month, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 23 to 3--23 to 3--to approve the NDAA, an overwhelming vote that reflects the committee's proud tradition of bipartisan support for the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. I thank the committee's ranking member, the Senator from Rhode Island, for his months of hard work on the NDAA. It has been a great pleasure to work with him on this legislation, and I remain appreciative of the thoughtfulness and bipartisan spirit with which he approaches our national security. He is a great partner and a great leader. I also thank the majority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, for his commitment to bring the NDAA to the Senate floor on time and without delay. It is a testimony to his leadership that the Senate will once again consider this bill in regular order with an open amendment process."

"I am tremendously proud of the Senate Armed Services Committee's work on this legislation. This year's NDAA is the most significant piece of defense reform legislation in 30 years. It includes major reforms to the Department of Defense that can help our military rise to the challenge of a more dangerous world. The NDAA contains updates to the Pentagon's organization to prioritize innovation and improve the development and execution of defense strategy. The legislation continues sweeping reforms of the defense acquisition system to harness American innovation and preserve our military's technological edge. The NDAA modernizes the military health system to provide military servicemembers, retirees, and their families with higher quality care, better access to care, and a better experience of care. The NDAA authorizes a pay raise for our troops. It invests in the modern equipment and advanced training they need to meet current and future threats. It helps to restore military readiness with $2 billion for additional training, depot maintenance, and weapons sustainment. And it gives our allies and partners the support they need to deter aggression and fight terrorism."

"This is a far-reaching piece of legislation, but there is one challenge it could not address: the dangerous mismatch between growing worldwide threats and arbitrary limits on defense spending that are in current law. This mismatch has very real consequences for the thousands of Americans who serve in uniform and sacrifice on our behalf all around the Nation and the world. Our troops are doing everything we ask of them, but we must ask ourselves: Are we doing everything we can for them? The answer, I say with profound sadness, is we are not. Since 2011 the Budget Control Act has imposed arbitrary caps on defense spending. Over the last 5 years, as our military has struggled under the threat of sequestration, the world has only grown more complex and far more dangerous. Since 2011 we have seen Russian forces invade Ukraine, the emergence of the so-called Islamic State and its global campaign of terrorism, increased attempts by Iran to destabilize U.S. allies and partners in the Middle East, growing assertive behavior by China and the militarization of the South China Sea, numerous cyber attacks on U.S. industry and government agencies, and further testing by North Korea of nuclear technology and other advanced military capabilities. Indeed, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified in February that over the course of his distinguished five-decade career, he could not recall "a more diverse array of challenges and crises" than our Nation confronts today."

"Our military is being forced to confront these growing threats with shrinking resources. This year's defense budget is more than $150 billion less than fiscal year 2011. Despite periodic relief from the budget caps that imposed these cuts, including the Bipartisan Budget Act of last year, each of our military services remains underfunded, undersized, and unready to meet current and future threats. In short, as threats grow and the operational demands on our military increase, defense spending in constant dollars is decreasing. How does that make any sense? The President's defense budget request strictly adheres to the bipartisan budget agreement, which is $17 billion less than what the Department of Defense planned for last year. As a result, the military services' underfunded requirements total nearly $23 billion for the coming fiscal year alone. Meanwhile, sequestration threatens to return in 2018, taking away another $100 billion from our military through 2021. This is unacceptable."

"While the NDAA conforms to last year's budget agreement at present, I have filed an amendment to increase defense spending above the current spending caps. This amendment will reverse shortsighted cuts to modernization, restore military readiness, and give our servicemembers the support they need and deserve. I do not know whether this amendment will succeed, but the Senate must have this debate and Senators are going to have to choose a side. At the same time, as I have long believed, providing for the common defense is not just about a bigger defense budget--as necessary as that is. We must also reform our Nation's defense enterprise to meet new threats, both today and tomorrow, and to give Americans greater confidence, which they don't have a lot of now, that the Department of Defense is spending their tax dollars efficiently and effectively. That is exactly what this legislation does. The last major reorganization of the Department of Defense was the Goldwater-Nichols Act, which marks its 30th anniversary this year. Last fall the Senate Armed Services Committee held a series of 13 hearings on defense reform. We heard from 52 of our Nation's foremost defense experts and leaders. The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 30 years ago responded to the challenges of its time. Our goal was to determine what changes needed to be made to prepare the Department of Defense to meet the new set of strategic challenges. As Jim Locher, the lead staffer on Goldwater-Nichols, testified last year: "No organizational blueprint lasts forever...[T]he world in which DOD must operate has changed dramatically over the last 30 years.""

"Instead of one great power rival, the United States now faces a series of transregional, cross-functional, multidomain, and long-term strategic competitions that pose a significant challenge to the organization of the Pentagon and the military, which is often rigidly aligned around functional issues and regional geography. Put simply, the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 30 years ago was about operational effectiveness--improving the ability of the military services to plan and operate together as one joint force. The problem today is strategic integration--how the Department of Defense integrates its activities and resources across different regions, functions, and domains, while balancing and sustaining those efforts over time. The NDAA would require the next Secretary of Defense to create a series of "cross-functional mission teams" to better integrate the Department's efforts and achieve discrete objectives. For example, one could imagine a Russia mission team with representatives from policy, intelligence, acquisition, budget, the services, and more. There is no mechanism to perform this kind of integration at present. The Secretary and the Deputy have to do it ad hoc, which is an unrealistic burden. The idea of cross-functional teams has been shown to be tremendously effective in the private sector and by innovative military leaders, such as GEN Stan McChrystal. If applied effectively in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, I believe this concept could be every bit as impactful as the Goldwater-Nichols reforms."

"The NDAA would also require the next Secretary to reorganize one combatant command around joint task forces focused on discrete operational missions rather than military services. Here, too, the goal is to improve integration across different military functions and do so with far fewer staff than these commands now have. Similarly, the legislation seeks to clarify the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, focusing this leader on more strategic issues, while providing the Chairman greater authority to assist the Secretary with the global integration of military operations. The NDAA also seeks to curb the growth in civilian staff and military officers that has occurred in recent years. Over the past 30 years, the end strength--the total number of members of the services--of the joint force has decreased by 38 percent. The number of men and women serving in the military has decreased by 38 percent, but the ratio of four-star officers--admirals and generals--to the overall force has increased by 65 percent. We have seen similar increases among civilians at the senior executive service level. The NDAA, therefore, requires a carefully tailored 25-percent reduction in the number of general and flag officers, a corresponding 25-percent decrease to the ranks of senior civilians, and a 25-percent cut to the amount of money that can be spent on contractors who are doing staff work."

"The NDAA also caps the size of the National Security Council policy staff at 150. The National Security Council staff will be capped at 150. The staff has steadily grown over administrations of both parties in recent decades. Under George Herbert Walker Bush, there were 40; more than 100 in the Clinton administration; more than 200 during the George W. Bush administration; and now there are reports of nearly 400 under the current administration, plus as many as 200 contractors. This tremendous growth has enabled a troubling expansion of the NSC staff's activities from their original strategic focus to micromanagement of operational issues in ways that are inconsistent with the intent of Congress when it created the NSC in 1947. It has gotten so bad that all three leaders who served as Secretary of Defense under the current administration recently blasted the NSC's micromanagement of operational issues during their tenures. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has come out publicly in favor of shrinking the staff, saying he thinks we can do the job better with fewer people."

"In short, the NSC staff is becoming increasingly involved in operational issues that should be the purview of Senate-confirmed individuals in the chain of command, and doing so beyond the reach of congressional oversight. If this organization were to return to the intent of the legislation that established it, it could reasonably claim that its strategic functions on behalf of the President are protected by Executive privilege. If, on the other hand, the NSC staff is to play the kind of operational role it has in recent years--and I could give my colleagues example after example--if it is going to play the kind of operational role it has in recent years, then such a body cannot escape congressional oversight. The purpose of the provision in the NDAA to cap the size of the NSC staff is to state a preference for the Congress's original intent in creating the NSC."

"As I have said, integration is a major theme in the NDAA. Another one is innovation. For years after the Cold War, the United States enjoyed a near monopoly on advanced military technologies. That is changing rapidly. Our adversaries are catching up, and the United States is at real and increasing risk of losing the military technological dominance we have taken for granted for 30 years. At the same time, our leaders are struggling to innovate against an acquisition system that too often impedes their efforts. I have applauded Secretary Carter's attempts to innovate and reach out to nontraditional high-tech firms, but it is telling that this has required the Secretary's personal intervention to create new offices, organizations, outposts, and initiatives--all to move faster and get around the current acquisition system. Innovation cannot be an auxiliary office at the Department of Defense; it must be the central mission of its acquisition system. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, also known as AT&L. It has grown too big, tries to do too much, and is too focused on compliance at the expense of innovation. That is why the NDAA seeks to divide AT&L's duties between two offices--a new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and an empowered and renamed Under Secretary of Management and Support, which was congressionally mandated 2 years ago."

"The job of research and engineering would be developing defense technologies that can ensure a new era of U.S. qualitative military dominance. This office would set defense-wide acquisition and industrial-based policy. It would pull together the centers of innovation in the defense acquisition system. It would oversee the development and manufacturing of weapons by the services. In short, research and engineering would be a staff job focused on innovation, policy, and oversight of the military services and certain defense agencies, such as DARPA. By contrast, management and support would be a line management position. It would manage the multibillion-dollar businesses--such as the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Commissary Agency--that buy goods and services for the Department of Defense. It would also manage other defense agencies that perform other critical business functions for the Department, such as performing audits, paying our troops, and managing contracts. This would not only enable research and engineering to focus on technology development, it would also provide for a better management of billions of dollars of spending on mission support activities."

"These organizational changes complement the additional acquisition reforms in the NDAA that build on our efforts of last year. This legislation creates new pathways for the Department of Defense to do business with nontraditional defense firms. It streamlines regulations to procure commercial goods and services. It provides new authorities for the rapid prototyping, acquisition, and fielding of new capabilities. It imposes new limits on the use of so-called "cost-plus" contracts. The overuse of these kinds of contracts and the complicated and expensive government bureaucracy that goes with them serves as a barrier to entry for commercial, nontraditional, and small businesses that are driving the innovation our military needs. Another major reform in this year's NDAA is the most sweeping overhaul of the military health system in a generation. This strong bipartisan effort is the result of several years of careful study. The NDAA creates greater health value for military families and retirees and their families by improving the quality of health care they receive, providing timely access to care, and enhancing patient satisfaction--all done at lower costs to the patients by encouraging them to seek high-value health services from high-value health care providers."

"The NDAA incorporates many of the best practices and recent innovations of high-performing private sector health care providers. For example, the NDAA creates specialized care centers of excellence at major medical centers based on the specialized care delivery model in high-performing health systems like the Cleveland Clinic. The legislation also expands the use of telehealth services and incentivizes participation in disease management programs. Finally, the NDAA expands and improves access to care by requiring a standardized appointment system in military treatment facilities and creating more options for patients to get health care in the private sector. Taken together, these reforms, along with many others in the bill, will improve access to and quality of care for servicemembers and their families and retirees and their families, and they will improve the military and combat medical readiness of our force and reduce rising health care costs for the Department of Defense. This entails some difficult decisions. The NDAA makes significant changes to the services' medical command structures and right-sizes the costly military health system infrastructure, and, yes, the NDAA asks some beneficiaries to pay a little more for a better health system."

"Let me make three brief points. First, Active-Duty servicemembers will not pay for any health care services or prescription drugs they receive, and the NDAA does not increase the cost of health care by a single cent for families of active-duty servicemembers enrolled in TRICARE Prime. There will continue to be no enrollment fees for their health care coverage. All beneficiaries, including retirees and their families, will continue to receive health care services and prescription drugs free of charge in military hospitals and clinics. Second, the NDAA does ask working-aged retirees, many of whom are pursuing a second career, to pay a little more. Increases in annual enrollment fees for TRICARE Choice are phased in over time, and there are modest increases in pharmacy copays at retail pharmacies and for brand-name drugs through the mail-order pharmacy. It is important to remember that 68 percent of retirees live within the service area of a military hospital or clinic where they will continue to enjoy no co-pays for prescription drugs, and all military retirees have access to the mail-order pharmacy, where they can access a 90-day supply of generic prescriptions free of charge through fiscal year 2019. Third, while some military retirees will pay a little more, the guiding principle of this reform effort is that we would not ask beneficiaries to pay more unless they receive greater value in return--better access, better care, and better health outcomes. The NDAA delivers on that promise. Modernizing the military health system is part of the NDAA's focus on sustaining the quality of life of our military servicemembers, retirees, and their families."

"The NDAA authorizes a 1.6-percent pay raise for our troops and reauthorizes over 30 types of bonuses and special pays. The legislation restructures and enhances leave for military parents to care for a new child, and it provides stability for the families of our fallen by permanently extending the special survivor indemnity allowance. No widow should have to worry year to year that she or he may not receive the offset of the so-called widows' tax. If this NDAA becomes law, he or she will never have to worry about that. The NDAA also implements the recommendations of the Department of Defense Military Justice Review Group by incorporating the Military Justice Act of 2016. The legislation modernizes the military court-martial trial and appellate practice, incorporates best practices from Federal criminal practice and procedures, and increases transparency and independent review in the military justice system. Taken together, the provisions contained in the NDAA constitute the most significant reforms to the Uniform Code of Military Justice in a generation."

"I say to my colleagues: This is an ambitious piece of legislation, and it is one that reflects the growing threats to our Nation. Everything about the NDAA is threat driven--everything, that is, but its top line of $602 billion. That is an arbitrary figure set by last year's budget agreement, having nothing to do with events in the world, and which itself was a product of 5 years of letting politics, not strategy, determine the level of funding for our national defense. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs GEN Martin Dempsey described last year's defense budget as "the lower ragged edge of manageable risks." Yet here we are 1 year later with defense spending arbitrarily capped at $17 billion below what our military needed and planned for last year. I don't know what lies beneath the lower ragged edge of manageable, but this is what I fear it means--that our military is becoming less and less able to deter conflict and that if, God forbid, deterrence does fail somewhere and we end up in conflict, our Nation will deploy young Americans into battle without sufficient training or equipment to fight a war that will take longer, be larger, cost more, and ultimately claim more American lives than it otherwise would have. That is the growing risk we face, and for the sake of the men and women serving in our military, we cannot change course soon enough. The Senate will have the opportunity to do just that when we consider my amendment to reverse the budget-driven cuts to the capabilities of our Armed Forces that are needed to defend the Nation. I hope we will seize this opportunity. We ask a lot of our men and women in uniform, and they never let us down. We must not let them down. As we move forward with consideration of the NDAA, 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."

"I wear a bracelet bearing the name of a fallen hero, Matthew Stanley, which his mother, Lynn, gave me in 2007, at a town hall meeting in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire. His memory and the memory of our great leaders deserve better from me."