John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, may I make a couple of comments real quick before the distinguished majority leader modifies his request?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1569, as modified, be withdrawn; that the next first-degree amendments in order to H.R. 1735, the Defense authorization bill, be the Gillibrand amendment No. 1578 and the Ernst amendment No. 1549; and that the Gillibrand and Ernst amendments be subject to a 60- affirmative-vote threshold.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up the Ernst amendment No. 1549.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as is obvious, we have an agreement to votes on both the Gillibrand and Ernst amendments. I would imagine it may require a recorded vote, but I am not positive. Then, we are planning on moving forward with additional amendments as agreed to by both sides and a managers' package as well. That is our intention. I am told that at some point there may be a cloture motion on the bill as well. So I wish to thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his continued cooperation, and hopefully we can get as many Members' amendments as possible up and voted on and finish the bill, at the soonest, next week.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, as we return to the legislation, unfortunately we are still, apparently, unable to move forward with managers' packages and amendments and others. So I would like to apologize to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have pending amendments, who have parts of managers' packages, and who have invested so many hours of time and effort to this legislation, not to mention members of the committee who spent an inordinate amount of time putting together a Defense authorization bill that I think all of us on both sides, with the exception of four who voted against it, were proud of and a product that was accomplished in a bipartisan fashion. I, again, want to thank my friend from Rhode Island for all of his hard work. But apparently right now we are still stuck in resistance. Rather than go through all of the reasons why, I hope we can have some serious negotiations in order for us to move forward and complete this legislation. Meanwhile, the world moves on, and there are greater and greater challenges to our security. In fact, this morning the New York Times says: ``Trainers Intended as Lift, but Quick Iraq Turnaround Is Unlikely.'' That is The New York Times. The New York Times says: Mr. Obama's plan does not call for small teams of American troops to accompany Iraqi fighters onto the battlefield, to call in airstrikes or advise on combat operations. Nor is it likely to significantly intensify an air campaign in which American warplanes have been able to locate and bomb their targets only about a quarter of the time. ``This alone is not going to do it,'' said Michele A. Flournoy, who was the senior policy official in the Pentagon during Mr. Obama's first term. ``It is a great first step, but it should be the first in a series of steps.'' One of the reasons I have that quote from Michele Flournoy is that it is not just former Bush administration officials. It is former Obama administration officials who all agree that what we are doing is without strategy and without prospect of success. POLITICO article: ``Obama's Iraq quagmire.'' The President finds himself dragged back into a war he was elected to end. When pressed on why the latest efforts do not include having American troops serve as spotters for airstrikes or sending Apache aircraft to back up the Iraqi troops, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters the president ``has been very clear he'll look at a range of different options.'' That is encouraging that the President has been very clear. I love it. All these spokespeople use two sorts of fillers: One is ``very clear'' and the other is ``quite frankly.'' Do you ever notice that? Isn't that interesting? Maybe we should take that out of their vocabulary--``very clear'' and ``frankly''--when they are neither clear nor frank. But anyway, Mr. Rhodes said--he is really a very interesting guy: ``The U.S. military cannot and should not do this simply for Iraqis, and, frankly, Iraqis want to be in the lead themselves.'' ``The U.S. military cannot and should not do this simply for Iraqis.'' Does anyone in the world think that the United States of America would be engaged simply for Iraqis? Has Mr. Rhodes ever listened to Mr. Baghdadi and ISIS and their intentions to attack and destroy America as much as they possibly can? POLITICO: ``Trainers or advisors? White House and Pentagon don't agree.'' The White House says the new batch of troops deploying to Iraq are going to train Iraqi recruits to fight the Islamic State. The Pentagon says the 450 American personnel headed to Al-Taqaddum Air Base are going over just as advisers. The mixed signals come as President Barack Obama struggles to find a balance between achieving his goal of ``degrading and ultimately destroying'' the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant while avoiding restarting a war in Iraq that he has worked to end since he became President in 2009. From The Wall Street Journal editorial this morning: ``Obama's Latest Iraq Escalation.'' President Obama all but admitted on Wednesday that his strategy against the Islamic State is flailing by ordering an additional 450 U.S. military advisers to join the 3,500 already in Iraq. Alas, this looks like more of the half- hearted incrementalism that hasn't worked so far. The fundamental problem with Mr. Obama's strategy is that he is so determined to show that the U.S. isn't returning to war in Iraq that he isn't doing enough to win the war we are fighting. In September he pledged to ``degrade'' and ultimately ``destroy'' ISIS--the kind of commitment a U.S. President must never make lightly. But his fitful bombing and timid special-forces campaign hasn't been able to stop the jihadist advances, much less drive it out of Iraq's western cities. The longer ISIS stands up to a U.S. President pledging its destruction, the more of a magnet it becomes for young men willing to die for its perverted form of Islam. Again, an article in the Wall Street Journal today: ``To U.S. Allies, Al Qaeda Affiliate in Syria Becomes the Lesser Evil.'' This is what so many of us were so concerned about when we literally begged for help for the Free Syrian Army back as long ago as 3 years ago--that we would end up in a situation where we had the Faustian choice of Al Qaeda, Bashar al-Assad versus Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda- affiliated organizations. That is a scenario that most of us said might happen, unless we supported the Free Syrian Army. The Wall Street Journal says: In the three-way war ravaging Syria, should the local Al Qaeda branch be seen as the lesser evil to be wooed rather than bombed? This is increasingly the view of some of America's regional allies and even some Western officials. Outnumbered and outgunned, the more secular, Western-backed rebels have found themselves fighting shoulder to shoulder with Nusra in key battlefields. The list goes on and on. Lebanon's Labor Minister, who is a prominent Lebanese Christian politician long opposed to Mr. Assad, said: ``This is great error--we refuse the choice between ISIS and Nusra, We want to choose between democracy and dictatorship, not between terrorism and terrorism. If the Syrians have to choose between ISIS, Nusra or Assad, they will choose Assad.'' That is exactly the situation that Assad has been hoping for. The New York Times: ``Russian Groups Crowdfund the War in Ukraine.'' The Novorossiya Humanitarian Battalion boasts on its website that it provided funds to buy a pair of binoculars used by rebels in eastern Ukraine to spot and destroy an armored vehicle. . . . It is unclear just how extensive the fundraising network is, or how much money flows through it, though the separatist groups identified by The Times claim in social media posts to have raised millions of dollars. The New York Times, ``Increasingly Frequent Call on Baltic Sea: `The Russian Navy Is Back.' '' The Wall Street Journal, ``The New Cold War's Arctic Front: Putin is militarizing one of the world's coldest, most remote regions.'' The Washington Post: The U.S. should send aid to democracy's front lines in Ukraine. In the past several months, Ukraine's freely elected government has taken dramatic steps to reform its economy, fight corruption and rebuild democratic institutions. It has imposed painful austerity on average Ukrainians, stripped oligarchs of political and economic privileges and rewritten laws to encourage free enterprise and foreign investment. It has done all this even while fighting a low-grade war against Russia, which has deployed an estimated 10,000 troops to eastern Ukraine and, with its local proxies, attacks Ukrainian forces on a near-daily basis. . . . What's missing is a decision by Mr. Obama to make the defense of Ukraine a priority. The president has ceded leadership on the issue to Germany and France and overridden those in his administration and Congress who support arms deliveries. . . . A stronger U.S. commitment to Ukraine will not guarantee its success. But Mr. Obama's lukewarm support risks a catastrophic failure for the cause of Western democracy. I cannot emphasize enough to my colleagues that this is a critical and fundamental issue as to whether we will provide defensive weapons to Ukraine, and I would remind my colleagues who don't want to send American troops anywhere that they are not asking for American troops. They are not asking for a single boot on the ground. Why in the world we can't provide them with defensive weapons is something I will never understand as long as I live. The New York Times, ``Hackers May Have Obtained Names of Chinese with Ties to U.S. Government.'' And, of course, we all know that in the last week some 4 million Americans, at least, have been hacked into and had some of their most sensitive information broken into, which is one of the arguments many of us had for consideration of the cyber bill on the floor of the Senate as part of the Defense bill. Obviously, we are in a cyber war. Obviously, it requires the involvement and engagement of the Department of Defense, along with our intelligence agencies, and that is why I am a bit taken aback by the vociferous opposition by my colleagues on that side of the aisle to addressing this issue since it is clearly part of the defense and security of this Nation. I would like to mention--and I appreciate the indulgence of my friend from Rhode Island--the issue of Russian rocket engines. Less than 6 months after the prohibition was enacted in last year's NDAA, which would end the use of RD-180 on military space launches by 2019, the administration has stated they want access to 14 more Russian rocket engines. Agreeing to the administration's request endorses another 8 years of Russian rocket engines and over $300 million for Vladimir Putin and his cronies. We must not reward Vladimir Putin and the Russian military industrial complex. We cannot in good conscience agree to reward the Russian military industrial base with over $300 million in rocket engines while they occupy Crimea, destabilize Ukraine, send weapons to Iran, and violate the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The bill before us today would limit the use of Russian rocket engines and restates the committee's direction to end the use of Russian engines for national security space launches by 2019. There are some who want to continue our Nation's dependence on Russian rocket engines. The NDAA would put an end to this dependence and stop hundreds of millions of dollars from going to Vladimir Putin. We can meet our national security space needs without Russia, and we must lead by example by eliminating our dependence as quickly as possible and fostering competition. I say to my colleagues, we have two launch providers, ULA and SpaceX. Regardless of the Russian RD-180, we will be able to provide full redundant capabilities by 2017 with the Delta IV, Falcon 9, and Falcon Heavy. There will be no capability gap. The Atlas 5 is not going anywhere anytime soon. With the engines allowed under this amendment, ULA has enough Atlas 5s to get them through at least 2018, if not later. As the New York Times editorial board stated last week: When sanctions are necessary, the countries that impose them must be willing to pay a cost, too. After leaning on France to cancel the sale of two ships to Russia because of the invasion of Ukraine, the United States can hardly insist on continuing to buy national security hardware from one of Mr. Putin's cronies. I have a Reuter's article from last year. ``Comrade Capitalism: In murky Pentagon deal with Russia, big profit for a tiny Florida firm.'' ULA's dealings with Russia are troubling and ethically questionable. A Reuters investigation this past November on the RD-180 raises troubling issues regarding the businesses and shell companies that facilitate the purchase of Russian rocket engines. The report describes a five-person company called RD AMROSS, a joint venture between Russian rocket engine manufacturer Energomash and Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne that collects nearly $93 million in cost markups. The article uncovers that in the past, RD AMROSS was investigated by the Defense Contract Management Agency, which determined that in a previous contract, RD AMROSS had collected $80 million in ``unallowable excessive pass-through charges.'' The article titled ``Comrade Capitalism'' also exposed the role senior Russian politicians and close friends of Vladimir Putin play in the in the Energomash management. The article states that according to a Russian audit of Energomash, the Russian rocket manufacturer had been operating at a loss because funds were ``being captured by unnamed offshore intermediary companies.'' Well, I just want to say there is no argument for the continued purchase of these rocket engines from the Russians--from Vladimir Putin and his cronies, one of whom was involved in the management and has been sanctioned by the United States of America. I have confidence America is capable of building our own rocket engines, and I am confident we can do that in a reasonable period of time--like 1 to 2 years. For us to commit to the continued use of these rocket engines and making millions and millions of dollars, in this case $300 million, for Vladimir Putin and his cronies is--the question has to be asked of individuals who want to continue the purchase of these rocket engines from this Russian shell company: Why do you want to help Vladimir Putin? Why do you want to help Vladimir Putin and his cronies by giving them as much as $300 million? That is a legitimate question. If any of my colleagues who support this basically unlimited or continued purchase of rocket engines from Russia rather than having it terminated in a reasonable and very short time, the question has to be asked: Why are you helping Vladimir Putin? Why are you helping his cronies? That is a legitimate question, and if any of my colleagues try to force this continued and unnecessary purchase of Russian rocket engines, that question needs to be asked of them. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on amendment No. 1569 be moved to 3 p.m. today. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up the following amendments: Ernst No. 1549, Gillibrand No. 1578, Whitehouse No. 1693, Fischer-Booker No. 1825, Collins No. 1660, Cardin No. 1468; that at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, June 16, the Senate vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed: Fischer- Booker No. 1825; Collins No. 1660; Cardin No. 1468; Gillibrand No. 1578; Ernst No. 1549; Whitehouse No. 1693; Durbin No. 1559, as modified; and Paul No. 1543; that there be no second-degree amendments in order to any of these amendments prior to the votes, and that the Gillibrand, Ernst, Whitehouse, Durbin, and Paul amendments require a 60-affirmative-vote threshold for adoption; also, that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes and that all votes after the first be 10 minutes in length. I further ask that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on the McCain substitute amendment No. 1463 occur at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, June 16.

Mr. McCAIN. I would remind my good friend from Nevada, the Democratic leader, for the last 2 years we took up the Defense authorization bill, and it was taken up so late there was not a single amendment--not a single, solitary amendment on the Defense authorization bill for the last 2 years. So I understand the Democratic leader's commitment to amendments. It is too bad that for 2 years we never had a single amendment to the Defense authorization bill. As far as relevant amendments are concerned, one of the things about this body is that everybody has the right to propose an amendment until their amendments are not made germane. The three pending Democratic amendments we have now on the bill are not germane. So all I can say is that I hope we can get a modification. I hope we can move forward. I just wish to point out one more time what I know that my colleagues have heard over and over, and I will make it brief. Henry Kissinger testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the world has never been in more crises. This world is at risk, and we have to--we have to protect the men and women who are serving in our security. I would argue that a national defense authorization act is probably more important now than it has been at any time in recent history. I refuse to modify my request.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. McCAIN. I await the impressive and loquacious and convincing words of the Senator from Texas. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want to say a few words about the Burr amendment, No. 1921, which has now been made pending. I am thankful for the leadership of Chairman Burr and Vice Chairman Feinstein. The language of this amendment, of which I am an original cosponsor, was overwhelmingly approved by a 14-to-1 vote in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in March. Implementing legislation to address a long list of cyber threats that have become all too common is among my highest priorities. Earlier this month, it was the Office of Personnel Management and the Army. A few weeks before that, it was the Pentagon network, the White House, and the State Department. Before that, it was Anthem and Sony. That is just to name a few. I am pleased we are able to consider this amendment on the National Defense Authorization Act. This voluntary information sharing is critical to addressing these threats and ensuring that mechanisms are in place to identify those responsible for costly and crippling cyber attacks and ultimately deterring future attacks. Our current defenses are inadequate, and our overall cyber strategy has failed to deter cyber adversaries from continued attacks of intellectual property theft and cyber espionage against the U.S. Government and American companies. This failure to develop a meaningful cyber deterrent strategy has increased the resolve of our adversaries and will continue to do so at a growing risk to our national security until we demonstrate that the consequences of exploiting the United States through cyber greatly outweigh any perceived benefit. This amendment is a crucial piece of that overall deterrent strategy, and it is long past time that Congress move forward on information- sharing legislation. This legislation--again, 14 to 1 from the Select Committee on Intelligence--complements a number of critical cyber provisions which are already in the bill which will ensure that the Department of Defense has the capabilities it needs to deter aggression, defend our national security interests, and, when called upon, defeat our adversaries in cyber space. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Defense to develop, prepare, coordinate, and, when authorized by the President, conduct a military cyber operation in response to malicious cyber activity carried out against the United States or a U.S. person by a foreign power. The bill includes a provision requiring the Secretary of Defense to conduct biennial exercises on responding to cyber attacks against critical infrastructure. It limits $10 million in funds available to the Department of Defense to provide support services to the Executive Office of the President until the President submits the integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyber space, which was required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. It authorizes $200 million for a directed evaluation by the Secretary of Defense of the cyber vulnerabilities of every major DOD weapons system by not later than December 31, 2019. It requires an independent panel on DOD war games to assess the ability of the national mission forces of the U.S. Cyber Command to reliably prevent or block large-scale attacks on the United States by foreign powers with capabilities comparable to those expected of China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia in years 2020 and 2025. It establishes a $75 million cyber operations procurement fund for the commander of U.S. Cyber Command to exercise limited acquisition authorities. It directs the Secretary of Defense to designate Department of Defense entities to be responsible for the acquisition of critical cyber capabilities. The cyber security bill was passed through the Select Committee on Intelligence because that is clearly, in many respects, among the responsibilities of the Select Committee on Intelligence. But I think it is obvious to anyone that the Department of Defense is a major player. I just outlined a number of the provisions of the bill which are directly overseen and related to the Department of Defense. So my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be all torqued- up about the fact that this cyber bill should be divorced from the Department of Defense. I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very aware that just in the last few days, 4 million Americans--4 million Americans--had their privacy compromised by a cyber attack. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has stated that we are ahead in every aspect of a potential adversary except for one, and that is cyber. There are great threats that are now literally to America's supremacy in space and to many other aspects of technology that have been developed throughout the world and are now part of our daily lives. So I am not quite sure why my friends on the other side of the aisle should take such exception to legislation that addresses our national security and the threats to it, which literally every expert in America has agreed is a major threat to our ability to defend the Nation. So I think there are colleagues who are not on the Intelligence Committee and are not familiar with the provisions of this bill. It clearly is not only Department of Defense-related, but it is Department of Defense-centric, with funds available to DOD to provide services to the Executive Office of the President, $200 million, cyber vulnerabilities of major DOD weapons system, an independent panel on DOD war games, and on and on. It is Department of Defense-related, and it is the whole purpose of the Defense authorization bill, which is to defend the Nation. To leave cyber security out of that--yes, there are some provisions in the underlying bill, but this hones and refines the requirements that we are badly in need of and gives the President of the United States and Secretary of Defense tools to try to limit the damage that is occurring as we speak. I want to repeat--and to my colleague from Indiana who is a member of that committee, I would ask him--4 million Americans recently were compromised by cyber attack.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. McCAIN. So it seems to me that to those 4 million Americans, we owe them and it is our responsibility--in fact, our urgent responsibility--to try to prevent that same kind of breach from being perpetrated on 4 million or 8 million or 10 million more Americans. If they are capable of doing it once to 4 million Americans, what is to keep them from doing the same thing to millions of Americans more, if we sit here idly by and do nothing on the grounds that the objection is that it is not part of the Department of Defense bill, which seems to me almost ludicrous?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I modify my amendment No. 1569 by accepting the second-degree amendment No. 1921, offered by the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. And isn't it true, I would ask my colleague from Indiana, that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently stated that in the potential of our adversaries to threaten our security, we have a definite superiority in all areas except for one, which is in the issue of cyber security; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my colleague again: The 4 million people whose privacy was just breached--4 million Americans--what potential damage is that to those individual Americans?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words here about the fact that apparently President Obama is now going to send hundreds more troops to Iraq. ``The President plans to deploy hundreds,'' according to the media reports, ``more American troops to western Anbar Province, POLITICO has learned, to step up training for Iraqi troops who'll be charged with retaking the city of Ramadi and other ground lost to ISIL.'' However, American troops still will not go into combat with Iraqi units, to help fight ISIL directly or to call for airstrikes. And defense officials continue to worry about Iraqis' end of the bargain--whether Baghdad can send enough recruits to take advantage of a widened American training pipeline. One U.S. training center, at Al Assad Air Base in western Anbar, hasn't had any Iraqi recruits to train for months. We are going to send 400 more people, maybe, to staff up their headquarters. I don't know, but when we have a situation where 75 percent of the air combat missions over Iraq and Syria return--75 percent of them--without dropping a weapon, it is so reminiscent of another war at another time many years ago where, under then-Secretary of Defense McNamara, this same kind of strategy prevailed. I would remind my colleagues of the various statements that have been made by President Obama and others. January 27, 2014: ``Obama Likens ISIS to `J.V. Team.' '' On August 7, 2014, Mr. Obama said that ``the United States had no intention of `being the Iraqi air force.' '' September 10, 2014: President Obama authorized a major expansion of the campaign against the Islamic State, saying the United States was recruiting a global coalition to ``degrade and ultimately destroy'' the militants. Unfortunately, there is still--the President said I believe the day before yesterday that ``we do not yet have a complete strategy'' for fighting the Islamic State and that thousands of new fighters were replenishing the ranks of the militant group faster than the coalition could remove them from the fight. In other words, we are losing. I would remind my colleagues of the news items today. The Wall Street Journal: ``U.S. Strategy in Lebanon Stirs Fears.'' Critics say Washington's funding cut for a program in Lebanon to develop alternative Shiite political voices to Hezbollah is an effort to appease Iran. ``China military says conducted drills near Taiwan, Philippines.'' Chinese warships and aircraft on Wednesday passed through Bashi Channel between Taiwan and the Philippines to hold routine planned exercises in the Western Pacific. The Hill: ``U.S. training base in Iraq hasn't seen a new recruit in weeks.'' The U.S. mission in Iraq has stalled at one of the five coalition training sites because the central government has not been sending new recruits, according to defense officials. There is an interesting one in the Wall Street Journal: ``Iraqi City of Mosul Transformed a Year After Islamic State Capture.'' I remind my colleagues of the many statements made by American officials as well as Iraqis that they were going to retake the city of Mosul very quickly. In Islamic State's stronghold of Mosul, the extremist group is working day and night to repair roads, manicure gardens and refurbish hotels. Iraq's second-largest city has never looked so good thanks to strict laws enforced by the Sunni militants. But beneath that veneer, the group metes out deadly punishments to those who don't comply with a long list of prohibitions imposed over the year since it took control of Mosul on June 10, 2014, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former city. . . . officials. Mosul is still almost fully inhabited--a contrast to cities where Iraqi and coalition forces have pushed the Islamic State out. Doctors, judges, and professors who defied or questioned Islamic State laws have been executed, sometimes by public stoning or crucifixion. Prisons are filled with people awaiting their sentences from the Islamic court. ``Nearly no one gets out alive,'' one of the residents said. Then came the attacks on minorities. ``There are many things we do not consider Islamic at all, like the way Christians were treated,'' said a female doctor from Mosul who is pious and veiled. ``All of Mosul does not accept what has happened to the Christians,'' said the woman, who lives in the northern city of Kirkuk. The group's attack on minorities ``was a major mistake that cost them our support.'' ``Suicide bomber attacks tourist site in Luxor, four Egyptians wounded.'' ``China military conducts drills near Taiwan, Philippines.'' ``Al-Qaida militants in Libya attack IS after leader killed.'' ``China exports repression beyond its borders.'' ``Foreign Policy: Airstrikes Killing Thousands of Islamic State Fighters, but It Just Recruits More.'' ``The strength of ISIS continues to grow, so they're getting more in from recruits than they are losing through casualties,'' said Rick Brennan, a former U.S. Army infantry officer who was a civilian adviser to the U.S. military in Iraq. . . . Brennan, now a senior political scientist at the Rand Corp., said he was basing his opinion on intelligence estimates that have been made public. So the bragging about killing 10,000 ISIS--they forgot to mention that there are more coming in than they are killing--also reminiscent of the days of the Vietnam war where body counts seemed to be the criteria. ``Islamic State keeps firm grip one year after Mosul's fall.'' Weak Iraqi forces no closer to reclaiming strategic city. The New York Times: ``ISIS Stages Attacks in Iraq and Libya, Despite U.S. Airstrikes.'' Islamic State militants staged attacks near Baghdad and the Libyan city of Surt on Tuesday, underscoring the group's persistent strength on both fronts despite a monthlong American-led air campaign against it in Syria and Iraq. The Wall Street Journal: ``U.S. Prepares Plan to Send Hundreds More Trainers to Iraq,'' as I talked about. The Associated Press: ``State Dep't spokesman: Saving Iraq could take 3-5 years.'' Naturally, there is no mention of Syria. By the way, they said that they were developing if not a complete strategy--I would like to know the incomplete part of it. I would like to know what strategy there is of any kind. The Wall Street Journal: ``Iraqi City of Mosul Transformed a Year After Islamic State Capture.'' I mentioned before that ISIS stage attacks in Iraq and Libya despite U.S. airstrikes. It goes on and on. Meanwhile, the President of the United States will, according to the media reports, announce today that we will send 400 or so more to Iraq, none of which is accompanied by a strategy, none of which is accompanied by forward air controllers, so we will continue to see 75 percent of the combat missions flown return to base without having discharged their weapons since we have no one on the ground to identify targets. This is incrementalism at its best or worst, depending on how you would describe it. Today, I hope we will be able to take some additional amendments. We have a managers' package getting prepared, and I believe Senator Reed and I are moving forward with some amendments we can have debated and also voted on today.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we will begin today, and hopefully, with the agreement of my friend from Rhode Island, we will have some amendments, voice votes, and recorded votes today. My colleagues can look forward to it. Also, those who wish to come to the floor to propose amendments, we are still looking at, hopefully, an agreement that the amendments will be closed out by this evening.