John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I yield to my friend from Rhode Island.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is it accurate to say that 2:45 p.m. is a time that is being seriously considered?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 5 minutes prior to the vote, if the time of the vote is set, and the Senator from Rhode Island be given 5 minutes prior to that, in the case of the time of the vote being set.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to modify my unanimous consent request that I be allowed 5 minutes prior to the vote. Order of Procedure Before I do that, however, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 2:45 p.m. be equally divided between the managers or their designees, and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of S. 84; further, that following the disposition of S. 84, the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair for the all-Members briefing. So I would ask the Senator from Oregon how much time he needs.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am asking for a ruling on the unanimous consent request I just made.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I add to that unanimous consent request that I be given the final 5 minutes before the vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Oregon who asked if there were not any people who were qualified to serve as Secretary of Defense, I am absolutely certain there are. Is there anyone as qualified as General Mattis? My answer to the Senator from Oregon is no. I have watched General Mattis for years. I have seen the way that enlisted and officers react to his leadership. I have seen the scholarly approach he has taken to war and to conflict. I hope the Senator from Oregon will have at some point a chance to get to know him, and he will then appreciate the unique qualities of leadership that are much needed in these times where the outgoing President of the United States has left the world in a state of chaos because of an absolute failure of leadership, which is disgraceful. We now see an outgoing President of the United States who in 2009 inherited a world that was not being torn apart in the Middle East. The Chinese were not acting assertively in the South China Sea. The Russians had not dismembered Ukraine and taken Crimea, in gross violation of international law. All of those things have come about because of his presidency. So now he comes to the floor and objects to one of the most highly qualified individuals and leaders in military history. I say to the Senator from Oregon: You are wrong. I believe the overwhelming majority of this body will repudiate and cancel out his uninformed remarks. Mr. President, in a few minutes we will vote on a historic piece of legislation. For just the second time in seven decades, the legislation before us would provide an exception to the law preventing any person from serving as Secretary of Defense within 7 years of Active-Duty service as a regular commissioned officer of the Armed Forces. This legislation would allow Gen. James Mattis--the President-elect's selection for Secretary of Defense, who retired from the Marine Corps 3 years ago--to serve in that office. Earlier today, the Senate Armed Services Committee received testimony from General Mattis. Once again, he demonstrated exceptional command of the issues confronting the United States, the Department of Defense, and our military servicemembers, but he also showed something else-- that his understanding of civil-military relations is deep and that his commitment to civilian control of the Armed Forces is ironclad. General Mattis's character, judgment, and commitment to defending our Nation and its Constitution have earned him the trust of our next Commander in Chief, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and so many who are serving in our Armed Forces. General Mattis is an exceptional public servant worthy of the exceptional consideration. That is why, directly following the conclusion of today's hearing, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported this legislation to the Senate with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 24 to 3--I repeat: with an overwhelming vote of 24 to 3. I am not saying that members of the Armed Services Committee are smarter than the Senator from Oregon, but I am saying that members of the Armed Services Committee have scrutinized--both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat, including the ranking member--have looked at General Mattis. Many of us have known him for years and years, as he has shown the outstanding characteristics of leadership that he has had the opportunity to display in his service to the country, and he was voted out by an overwhelming vote of 24 to 3. So obviously there are 24 people on the Armed Services Committee who believe in General Mattis and believe that this exception should be made, as opposed to 3 who share the view of the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. McCAIN. That is why, directly following the conclusion of today's hearing, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported this legislation to the Senate with a vote of 24 to 3. I urge this body to follow suit. That said, it is important for future Senators to understand the context of our action here today. Civilian control of the Armed Forces has been a bedrock principle of American Government since our Revolution. A painting hanging in the Capitol Rotunda not far from this floor celebrates the legacy of George Washington, who voluntarily resigned his commission as commander of the Continental Army to the Congress. This principle is enshrined in our Constitution, which divides control of the Armed Forces among the President as Commander in Chief and the Congress as coequal branches of government. Since then, Congress has adopted various provisions separating military and civilian positions. In the 19th century, for example, Congress prohibited an Army officer from accepting a civil office, more recently, in the National Security Act of 1947, and subsequent revisions, Congress's 7-year ``cooling off'' period for any person to serve as Secretary of Defense. It was only 3 years later, in 1950, that Congress granted GEN George Marshall an exemption to that law and the Senate confirmed him to be Secretary of Defense. Indeed, the separation between civilian and military positions has not always been so clear. Twelve of our Nation's Presidents previously served as generals in the Armed Forces, and over the years, numerous high-ranking civilian officials in the Department of Defense have had long careers in military service. The basic responsibilities of civilian and military leaders are simple enough--for civilian leaders: to seek the best professional military advice while under no obligation to follow it; for military leaders: to provide candid counsel while recognizing civilians have the final say or, as General Mattis once observed, to insist on being heard and never insist on being obeyed. But the fact is that the relationship between civilian and military leaders is inherently and endlessly complex. It is a relationship of unequals who nonetheless share responsibility for the defense of the Nation. The stakes could not be higher. The gaps in mutual understanding are sometimes wide. Personalities often clash. And the unique features of the profession of arms and the peculiarities of service cultures often prove daunting for civilians who have never served in uniform. Ultimately, the key to healthy civil-military relations and civilian control of the military is the oath that soldiers and statesmen share in common ``to protect and defend the Constitution.'' It is about the trust they have in one another to perform their respective duties in accordance with our republican system of government. It is about the candid exchange of views engendered by that trust and which is vital to effective decisionmaking. And it is about mutual respect and understanding. The proper balance of civil-military relations is difficult to achieve, and, as history has taught us, achieving that balance requires different leaders at different times. I believe that in the dangerous times in which we live, General Mattis is the leader our Nation needs as Secretary of Defense. That is why, although I believe we must maintain safeguards of civilian leadership at the Department of Defense, I will support this legislation today and General Mattis' nomination to serve this Nation again as Secretary of Defense. I want to assure my friend from Rhode Island, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, who has very serious concerns--I want to assure him that this is a one-time deal. I know the Senator from Rhode Island had deep concerns about this whole process we have been through. Yet I think he has put the interests of the Nation and placed his confidence in General Mattis as being so exceptional that the law that was passed back in 1947--there can be made one single exception to it.

Mr. McCAIN. Has time expired according to the previous UC?

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. About 30 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from California, but if she had a shorter time--

Mr. McCAIN. I say to my dear friend from California, if she had a few minutes she would like to take at this time, I would be happy to yield to her.

Mr. McCAIN. OK. I take it back. Mr. President, I understand that, as usual, as we get to the edge of the cliff or the edge of the weekend, that somehow we will have an agreement and we will vote and we will pass a continuing resolution and we will all go home. We will all go home for the holidays and congratulate ourselves on doing such a great job and passing a congressional resolution. Meanwhile, the 8,000 men and women who are serving in Afghanistan will be having a different kind of next couple of weeks. It will be in combat, it will be in jeopardy, it will be in fighting an implacable enemy that we have been challenging and fighting for the last 12, 14 years. The 5,000 troops who are in Iraq and Syria, with their lives literally in danger--there has been a couple, a few casualties, tragic deaths in recent days. The siege of Aleppo continues and the slaughter continues of innocent men, women, and children. As the exodus, I am told, takes place from Aleppo, the Russians, Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and Bashar al-Assad's thugs are culling out the young men for special treatment and interrogation. God only knows what that is like. Of course, the flow of refugees continues, now adding to the 6 million. The 500,000 who have been killed, that continues. And we are about to pass an appropriations bill that reduces our ability to help those men and women who are serving our country in uniform get their job done. We are talking about a continuing resolution that is a reduction in spending, that freezes accounts in place, and does not give us the capability to move them around to meet the threats we are facing around the world. I must say to my colleagues, this is disgraceful. This is absolutely disgraceful. We are going to kick the can down the road because we failed to fund our troops. The fiscal irresponsibility of another continuing resolution will force the Department of Defense to operate for 7 months in the fiscal year without a real budget. Tell me one company or corporation in the world, small or large, that has their budget frozen for 7 months of the year and expects to operate with any kind of efficiency. You can't. You can't. Now, the incoming President of the United States says he wants to spend more money on defense. Are we doing that with this continuing resolution? Of course not. The incoming President of the United States says we don't have a big enough Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and we are cutting the size of the military. Meanwhile, the President of the United States gives one of the most bizarre speeches I have ever heard in my life about what a great job he has done, what a fantastic job; and thank God ISIS does not pose an existential threat to the United States of America--never mind San Bernardino, never mind all the other attacks across the country and Europe. Never mind those. It is not an existential threat. This is the same Barack Obama who said ISIS was the JV and couldn't carry Kobe's T- shirt. So what are we doing? By God, we are going to be out of here. Thank God, we are going to be out of here. And what are we doing? We haven't passed a defense appropriations bill that funds our troops. Earlier this year we had a defense appropriations bill, approved unanimously by the Appropriations Committee, but Democrats put politics ahead of our troops, filibustered that legislation, and brought the Senate to a halt. Does anybody wonder about the approval rating of Congress when we will not even appropriate the money to defend this Nation and pay for the men and women in uniform who are sacrificing as we speak? Of course not. Why haven't we passed the bill? Now, fresh off an election--the election is over. Republicans won control of the House and the Senate and the White House in part by promising to rebuild our military. Congress is about to cut defense spending again by passing another irresponsible continuing resolution. Let me be clear, this continuing resolution would cut resources to our troops, delay the cutting-edge equipment they need, and hamper the war in Afghanistan. A lot of my colleagues may not understand, you authorize certain amounts of money for certain programs. With a continuing resolution, you can't shift that money around. Suppose there is a new product, there is a new weapon, there is a new ability we have. With a continuing resolution, now going on for 7 months, we will do that. Congratulations. Congratulations. So this is Washington. Democrats filibuster funding for our troops in a political game to extort more funding for pet domestic programs. Republicans feign outrage. Then those same Republicans return months later to negotiate a continuing resolution that gives Democrats the domestic spending increases they always wanted, does so by--guess what. Guess what. There is an increase in this continuing resolution for domestic programs, some of them pork-barrel projects, and cutting funds for defense. I am not making that up. I wonder how many of the 100 Senators who will be voting on this continuing resolution know that this continuing resolution increases domestic spending and decreases defense spending. What a sham. What a fraud. Is there any wonder the American people hold us in such contempt? We are down to paid staff and blood relatives. There is a lot wrong with this continuing resolution, but let me start with the rank hypocrisy embedded deep within its pages. Five years ago Congress recognized the need to rein in Federal spending, but instead of addressing the actual drivers of our deficits and debt, in one of the great copouts in history, it settled for a meat-ax approach. Congress passed the Budget Control Act, which cuts spending across the board. No matter how worthwhile, no matter how necessary, treat it all the same and cut it across the board, OK? It is designated to be so terrible, this sequestration--remember, it was 5 years ago-- sequestration would be so terrible it would force Republicans and Democrats to negotiate a more reasonable compromise. We know how that worked out. The Budget Control Act failed to force a grand bargain on the budget, but it was so genuinely terrible that Congress had to negotiate a series of short-term agreements to get out from under it. The latest of these was the Bipartisan Budget Act, which was passed last year and provided small increases for defense and on defense spending. This agreement was consistent with the principle articulated by many of my Republican and Democratic colleagues--that defense and nondefense were supposed to be treated equally. It does not matter when you see the world on fire, no matter when you see 6 million refugees out of Syria, no matter when you see 500,000 dead, no matter when you see the Chinese asserting control over the Asia-Pacific region, no matter that you see Vladimir Putin dismembering Ukraine and putting pressures of enormity on the Balkan countries, no matter that you see the Russians, now a major power in the Middle East for the first time since Anwar Sadat, threw him out of Egypt in 1973--no matter all that. No matter that we continue to increase because we react to the number of troops and the amount of equipment that we are having to send to Iraq and Syria and other places in the world--treat the EPA the same as the U.S. Marine Corps. Treat the IRS the same as our brave pilots who are now flying in combat in Iraq and Syria. Treat them the same. This was the so-called principle of parity. For the record, I never believed this trope. Instead, I held fast to another principle--that funding our troops would be based solely on what they need to defend the Nation. Isn't that an unusual sentiment-- to fund the troops with what they need to defend the Nation, to give them the very best equipment so that, in the testimony of the uniform service chiefs before the Armed Services committee, who said in unvarnished words--these great military uniformed leaders said: We are putting the lives of the men and women in uniform ``at greater risk.'' Is no one in this body embarrassed that we are putting the lives of the men and women in the military at greater risk? What is happening here? Many of my colleagues disagreed with me, which was their right. Over the last 2 years as Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, having listened to the testimony of our most senior military commanders about the growing risk to the lives of our servicemembers, I have tried to break the hold of these arbitrary spending limits, increase defense spending, and give our troops the resources they need to defend the Nation. Let me tell you what is happening to the military today. We have seen the movie before--after the Vietnam war. They have less ability to train. They have less ability to operate. Our pilots in the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy are flying fewer hours per month than Chinese and Russian pilots are. They are having to rob planes. They have even had to go to the Boneyard in Tucson, AZ, to find parts for their airplanes. They are that short of them. You know what is going to happen? The pilots of these services are going to get out in droves because the commercial airline pilots who were hired after the Vietnam war are all retiring. All these people want to do is fly airplanes. When they are in Syria and Iraq, yes, they fly a lot. When they get back, they don't fly at all. Why? They don't have the money. When you cut defense, the first thing that suffers is operations, maintenance, and training. Again, it is not as if it is a new phenomenon. We have seen the movie before. Here we are. We passed a defense bill last year that provided $38 billion in additional resources to give our servicemembers the modern equipment and advanced training they need. President Obama vetoed that bill because, as his White House explained, he would ``not fix defense without fixing nondefense spending.'' Think about that. The President of the United States puts defending this Nation on the same level as domestic programs. I am all for the domestic programs. I am not objecting to them, but to put them on the same level as the defense of the Nation partially explains the disasters over the last 8 years. America has decided to lead from behind, and America is now held without respect or regard throughout the world. We see all kinds of bad things happening, and I will not bother my colleagues because all I have to do is pick up the morning paper or turn on the television. This year I offered an amendment to the Defense authorization bill on the Senate floor to add $18 billion to the defense budget, an increase that would have returned defense spending to the level the President himself had requested and for which the Department of Defense had planned. The Senate Democrats and some Republicans voted against that amendment. One Democratic Senator objected, saying: ``If defense funds are increased, funding for domestic agencies must also be increased.'' Got that? ``If defense funds are increased, funding for domestic agencies must also be increased.'' Some Republicans, mainly on the Appropriations Committee, argued that the amendment would not adhere to the Bipartisan Budget Act and stall momentum to pass appropriations bills as we consider yet another continuing resolution. We see how well that worked out. So entrenched was this absurd notion of parity between defense and nondefense spending that when President Obama decided to keep more troops in harm's way in Afghanistan--finally recognizing a little reality--he refused to pay for them unless nondefense spending received an identical funding increase. Let me make that clear. The President of the United States--recognizing that the Taliban was not only not defeated but was gaining ground in parts of Afghanistan, the Afghan military sustaining unsustainable casualty rates--sent more troops to Afghanistan, sent more help to Afghanistan, but wouldn't pay for them unless we increased domestic spending. Is that some kind of nonsense? So entrenched was this absurd notion of parity between defense and nondefense spending that the bottom line is this: Congress has had multiple opportunities to give our troops the resources they need. Each time, aided and abetted by the President and his administration, we squandered these opportunities because of the so-called principle of parity--that ``any increase in funding must be shared equally between defense and nondefense.'' After all that, it turns out that parity was merely politics masquerading as principle. Because, dear friends, now Congress is about to pass a continuing resolution that shatters any notion of parity, breaks the spending limits of the Bipartisan Budget Act, increases nondefense spending at the expense of our troops, and even creates a loophole that allows nondefense spending to skirt the law and avoid sequestration-- not defense spending, nondefense spending. It is crazy. Under this continuing resolution, nondefense spending--get this. I don't know how many of my colleagues know this. Under this continuing resolution, nondefense spending is $3 billion above the Bipartisan Budget Act. Where does this additional money come from? It was taken from our troops. Under the continuing resolution, defense spending is $3 billion below the Bipartisan Budget Act. As a result of increased funding, nondefense spending violates the Bipartisan Budget Act and would face sequestration at the beginning of next year to bring it back in line with spending levels allowed under the law. Not so fast, my friends--the continuing resolution contains a ``get out of jail free'' card that allows nondefense spending to break the Bipartisan Budget Act to avoid sequestration. Here is what we are doing: We are cutting defense spending. We are increasing nondefense spending, even though it breaks the act and we have a provision in there that that is OK. I just hope that everybody knows what they are voting on in this. Am I missing something? Am I missing something? Do Republicans control the House of Representatives? They are the ones who put this provision in. It is the Republicans who control the House of Representatives. Do Republicans fill the majority of the seats in this Senate? The last time I checked, they do. Did the Republican candidate just win the White House? What on Earth are we doing here? Why are Republicans who complained for so long about runaway government spending about to vote on a take- it-or-leave-it continuing resolution that increases nondefense spending? Why are Republicans doing that? Why are Republicans who proclaim that ours is the party of strong defense cutting funding for our military to plus up spending on domestic programs? What is going on here? Why are Republicans who voted down increased funding for our military because of the Bipartisan Budget Act voting for a continuing resolution that allows nondefense spending to exceed that law and creates a loophole to escape sequestration? Why are Democrats who lectured for years--I got that lecture for hours and hours about the principle of fairness, of parity--who insisted that funding increases must be shared equally between defense and nondefense. Why are those Democrats about to support a continuing resolution that explicitly breaks that principle and that funds increases for nondefense by taking from defense? Regretfully, as I say about Republicans and Democrats, the answer, and the only answer I can offer is hypocrisy--rank hypocrisy. What is so disheartening about the hypocrisy of this continuing resolution is how unnecessary it is. We can pass an appropriations bill. The appropriations bill was passed out of the Appropriations Committee unanimously. We can pass it. We can do it tomorrow; we can do it tonight. But they don't want to do that. They want this continuing resolution with all this stuff hidden in it, with a lot of legislative things in it that we find out, guess what, 10 hours, 24 hours, maybe even 48 hours before we vote on it. That is when we find out what is in the bill. I would challenge--I would like to take a poll of my 100 colleagues here. How many of them have read the continuing resolution? I will bet you the number is zero. With this legislation, Congress has already done the hard work of negotiating a bipartisan compromise for defense spending. The Defense appropriations bill from earlier this year could easily be amended to reflect the compromise, and the Senate could be taking up the bill, but we are not. Instead, we are about to vote on another continuing resolution that would cut $6 billion from the level authorized by the NDAA. I want to point out again: Who is being harmed by this? My friends, obviously, as I have stated, absolutely the men and women who are serving. They are the ones who are suffering from this. In the Defense authorization bill, we have a 2.1-percent pay raise for the military. In the continuing resolution, it is not in there. We are not even going to reward our men and women in the military with a pay raise that they have earned. Some of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee will argue that this continuing resolution is an increase to defense spending. That is a lie. I don't say this very often, but anyone who says there is an increase in defense spending in this continuing resolution is lying. For those of you who are not familiar with Washington doublespeak, let me explain how cut translates into increase inside the beltway. The new continuing resolution represents a modest increase over the previous continuing resolution passed in September, but that legislation contained a large cut to defense spending. Just as now, Members of this body were asked to go along with this cut with a promise that a Defense appropriations bill would soon follow. None appeared. In other words, the best we can say about the continuing resolution we are considering today in this body today--and I am sure it will be passed on a Friday night--is that it merely contains a smaller defense cut than its predecessor. Twist the figures all you want, and I guarantee you that somebody on the Budget Committee or the Budget Committee chairman will twist it. The fact is, this continuing resolution is $6 billion less than what Congress just authorized for defense spending. Yesterday, we passed a Defense authorization bill, and this is $6 billion less than what we authorized. That is what we should be grading ourselves on because that is what our military has told us they need and what this body has agreed to provide them. Let me emphasize that we go through weeks and months of hearings, markups, input, and debate, and we come up with a Defense authorization bill and provide this body in the Congress and the Nation with our best judgment of what America needs to defend this Nation and how much it costs. This continuing resolution will cut that number by $6 billion. That may not be much money among some, but it is one heck of a lot of money overall. The hypocrisy of this continuing resolution is nauseating. The defense cut it contains is blind to the needs of our military, but ultimately it is the basic fact that Congress has failed to pass an appropriations bill and will be forced to pass another continuing resolution that will have the most real and immediate consequences for our servicemembers. Our Nation asks a lot of the men and women serving in uniform. As I mentioned, we are going to go home tonight, I am sure, because of the pressures that always take place on a Thursday or Friday, and they will still be out there. They will still be out there on the front line. They will be in Syria, Iraq, and helping the Afghan fighters defend their nation. They won't be going home, but we will. And what will we leave them with? A $6 billion reduction in their ability to defend this Nation. The continuing resolution locks our military into last year's budget and last year's priorities. Tell me a company in the world where you have to stick with the priorities from the year before as you approach the coming year as to what you want to do and you are locked into the last year's provisions. Consider what happened to our counter-ISIL efforts under the continuing resolution that is about to expire. Last week, military leaders had to come to Congress hat in hand seeking relief from the constraints of a continuing resolution in order to keep up the fight against ISIL. Since the beginning of the year, the Defense Department requested money to support local forces in Syria who are fighting to drive ISIL out of Raqqa, but because we are on a continuing resolution, money wasn't there. The Secretary of Defense, the highest civilian leader of our military, had to spend his time searching couch cushions to continue our fight against ISIL. Every day that ISIL remains entrenched in Raqqa is another day they can plot attacks on our homeland. It is another day they can terrorize Syria. It is another day they can call themselves a caliphate. It is another day they can attract foreign fighters to their murderous cause. All of the Defense authorization and appropriations bills included the money to fund Syrians fighting to remove ISIL from its sanctuary, but the continuing resolution did not. If we had done our jobs, this wouldn't be an issue, but it was. The same thing will happen under a new continuing resolution that does not fully fund the war in Afghanistan. The legislation will force the Department of Defense to pay for urgent requirements to deter Russian aggression in Europe by cannibalizing funds needed to help our Afghan partners take the fight to our common terrorist enemies. When it comes to national security, robbing Peter to pay Paul is not a strategy; it is a disgrace. This wouldn't be necessary under an appropriations bill, but it is under this continuing resolution, which is blind to the realities of our dangerous world, and the consequences will be felt on the battlefield. The Department of Defense had requested $814 million to provide our Afghan partners with the helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft they need to take the fight to the Taliban and ISIL. This continuing resolution contains none of that funding. If there is anything we need in this fight, it is airpower. General Nicholson, the commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, sent me a letter yesterday, and he warns that without this funding, ``the Afghan security forces risk losing the positive close air support momentum gained over the past year, which proved instrumental in enabling them to thwart the enemy eight separate times in its efforts to seize provincial capitals.'' What are we doing here? With the continuing resolution, we are putting the lives of countless Afghans in danger because we are not giving them the air support that they need. Our failure to do our jobs and pass this bill and this irresponsible continuing resolution will make it even harder to achieve success in our Nation's longest war. This is shameful. A continuing resolution will also make the job of managing the government's largest agency even more difficult and at the worst possible time. The Presidential transition process currently underway is difficult enough on its own, but no incoming President has ever had to inherit a Department of Defense operating under a continuing resolution. I will repeat that: No President has ever had to inherit a Department of Defense operating under a continuing resolution, and this is not the time to break the streak. Under a continuing resolution of any duration, our military, by law, has to delay 78 new military systems and stall additional production of 89 others. A continuing resolution delays major research and development initiatives. The latest continuing resolution provides DOD relief from these restrictions for the Ohio replacement program, the KC-46 tanker, and the Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, but that is only four programs out of hundreds. Worse still, this leaves DOD with the wrong mix of funding, causing shortfalls in important accounts totaling $22 billion. Let me repeat: The continuing resolution leaves the Department of Defense with a $22 billion shortfall across important accounts. Locking in funding at last year's level across all accounts is willful ignorance of the Department's plan to grow necessary programs and cut wasteful ones. This is not wise fiscal stewardship. This is reckless government on autopilot, and here are just a few of the consequences. The continuing resolution is totally blind to the military readiness crisis that is putting the lives of servicemembers at risk. We are asking our troops to be ready to defend this Nation at a moment's notice. We are asking our troops to be ready to take the fight to ISIL. We are asking our troops to be ready to deter, and if necessary, defeat aggression in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia-Pacific. We are asking them to be ready today, but a continuing resolution would force tradeoffs that undermine readiness. We heard about the readiness crisis all year, but what does it really mean? It means the Navy doesn't have enough money to maintain ships and aircraft. It means that ships that taxpayers spent billions of dollars to buy will be anchored at docks instead of out to sea. It means our Navy and Marine Corps aircraft will be grounded and their pilot skills wasting away. It means the Air Force won't have the funding required to recruit airmen to keep its aircraft maintained and flying. The NDAA we just passed would have stopped the military from cutting soldiers, sailors, and airmen. But because of this continuing resolution, the Army will begin firing 3,000 qualified captains. That is 3,000 soldiers with families. That is 3,000 soldiers who want to stay in the military and continue to serve their country. That is 3,000 soldiers willing to put their lives on the line for us, but because we refuse to do our jobs, 3,000 soldiers are going to get pink slips. That is shameful. It is madness. Every senior leader at the Department of Defense has warned Congress about the negative impacts of a continuing resolution on our troops. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter stated that ``a continuing resolution is a straitjacket'' that ``prevents us from fielding a modern, ready force in a balanced way.'' A continuing resolution, Secretary Carter said, ``undercuts stable planning and efficient use of taxpayer dollars.'' The Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Neller, warned that a long-term continuing resolution ``dramatically increases risk to an already strained fiscal environment and disrupts predictability and our ability to properly plan and execute a budget and a 5-year program.'' The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Goldfein, warned that a continuing resolution would reduce procurement of critical munitions for the ISIL fight, affecting not only the United States but our coalition partners that rely on us to deliver preferred munitions. The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Richardson, warned that a continuing resolution would lead to wasted taxpayer dollars. Under a continuing resolution, the Navy would be forced to break up its contract actions into smaller pieces. As a result, Admiral Richardson warned that the Navy would not be able to ``take advantage of savings from contractors who could better manage their workload and pass on lower costs to the Navy. These redundant efforts drive additional time and cost into the system, for exactly the same output.'' The Chief of Staff of the Army, General Milley, made a similar warning about waste and inefficiency resulting from budget uncertainty, saying, ``things like multiyear contracts''--et cetera, et cetera. General Milley is right. I say to my colleagues: This madness has to end. It is time for Congress to do its job. When it comes to doing our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense, there is no call for lazy shortcuts that shortchange our troops. We passed the Defense authorization bill. Now let's fund it by passing the Defense appropriations bill, which gives our troops the resources, predictability, and flexibility they need and deserve. Next year, with a new President and Congress, let's go to work immediately on ending sequestration once and for all and returning to a strategy-driven defense budget. That is what the American people expect of us, and it is what the men and women who serve and sacrifice on our behalf deserve from us. As I said, if I know my history--and I have been around here long enough--there will be an agreement. We will have a vote, and then go home and congratulate ourselves. For the next 15 days--or whatever it is--we are going to enjoy the Christmas holidays with our families and friends, pat ourselves on the back, and tell each other what a great job we have done. We shouldn't do that. There are men and women serving in uniform overseas away from their families and friends and putting their lives in danger. We haven't done our job. We haven't done our job to provide for their security and their defense. What we have done is miserably failed, and this is another--not the first--and maybe the most egregious, given the state of the world today as we watch thousands being slaughtered in Aleppo, as we watch the Syrian refugee crisis, as we watch the Chinese act more aggressively, as we watch a buildup of the military in Kaliningrad, a place most people have not heard of, and we watch the continued aggression and advantage that our enemies and adversaries believe are appropriate action for them in light of our weakness. What do we do? The message we send to the men and women who are serving in our military is that we care more about being home for the holidays than we do about you. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what we are doing here is we are cutting defense spending, we are increasing nondefense spending, and we are locking in the legitimacy of the nondefense spending according to the Budget Control Act. So what we are doing by passing a continuing resolution is putting in sequestration again, while even reducing defense spending. In the words of the four uniformed chiefs of our military, you are-- and I quote them directly--``putting the lives of the men and women serving this Nation in uniform at greater risk''--at greater risk. You are putting the lives of the men and women who are serving in the military at greater risk because we want to get out of here for Christmas. Shame on you.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Constitution gives the Congress the power and responsibility to provide for the common defense, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, make rules for the government and regulation of the land naval forces. For 54 consecutive years, Congress has fulfilled these more important constitutional duties by passing the National Defense Authorization Act. Today the Senate has a chance to make it 55 years. It is precisely because of this legislation's critical importance to our national security that it is still one of the few bills in Congress that enjoys bipartisan support year after year. Indeed, this year's NDAA has been supported by Senators on both sides of the aisle. The Senate Armed Services Committee overwhelmingly approved the NDAA in a 23-to-3 vote back in May. The full committee followed by passing the NDAA with a bipartisan vote of 85 to 13. After a collaborative and productive conference process, the House passed the NDAA conference report with an overwhelming vote of 375 to 34. I hope the Senate will deliver another resounding vote today. I thank the committee's ranking member, the Senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed. Despite his lack of education at West Point and the impending doom of the Army football team this weekend, I appreciate the thoughtfulness and bipartisan spirit with which he approaches our national security. This is a much better bill thanks to the Senator from Rhode Island. I appreciate his friendship, and more than that, I appreciate the commitment he and I share to the defense of this Nation and the men and women who serve it. I also thank the majority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, for his commitment to bringing the NDAA to the floor and for his support throughout the year to make sure this legislation received full consideration and debate. Our Nation faces the most diverse and complex array of crises since the end of World War II--great power competition with Russia and China, rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the enduring threat of radical Islamist terrorism. Rising to the challenges of a more dangerous world requires bold reform to our national defense, and that is exactly what the NDAA delivers. 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 with 52 of our Nation's foremost defense experts and leaders. We followed up these hearings with a comprehensive review of the roles, missions, and organization of the major actors in the Department of Defense. This review was borne out of concern that the organization of the department too often inhibits, rather than enables, the talented people serving there to fulfill their duties at a time of major strategic and technological change. Building on this work, the NDAA seeks to improve strategic integration across functional components of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. At a time when the Department of Defense faces numerous threats that all span different regions, functions, and military domains, the Secretary of Defense needs better tools to more effectively develop integrated solutions and strategies for critical department objectives. To this end, the NDAA would allow the next Secretary of Defense to create and delegate decisionmaking authority to a series of cross- functional teams to achieve core objectives of the Department. These cross-functional teams would support the Secretary and Deputy Secretary in performing strategic integration more effectively in efficiency. Improving the effectiveness of our defense enterprise also requires targeting excess bureaucracy. Over the past 30 years, the end strength of the joint forces has decreased by 38 percent. I want to emphasize that. The end strength of the uniformed military has decreased by 38 percent, but the ratio of four-star officers to the overall force has increased by 65 percent. Especially at a time of constrained defense budgets, the military services must right-size their officer corps and shift as many personnel as possible from staff functions to operational and other vital roles. That is why the NDAA directs a reduction of 110 general and flag officers on Active Duty, and it requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study that will identify a further 10-percent reduction. Likewise, the NDAA includes a reduction to the number of senior executive service civilian employees in the Department of Defense commensurate with a reduction to general and flag officers. The legislation also imposes a limitation on funds used for staff augmentation contracts in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military department, a practice which has gotten completely out of control. The NDAA also caps the size of the National Security Council staff at 200 professional staff and detailees. The past 25 years has brought a consistent and steady growth of the NSC staff from 40 during the George Herbert Walker Bush administration to more than 100 in the Clinton administration, to more than 200 during the George W. Bush administration, to reports of nearly 400 under the current administration. In addition to the growth and size, and largely enabled by it, we have seen an expansion of the NSC's staff role into tactical and operational issues. NDAA will push the staff toward prioritizing the strategic mission that led Congress to create it in the first place. I will repeat that. The National Security Council was created to give advice and counsel to the President of the United States, not to give rules of engagement and specific instructions to officers, generals, and admirals in the field. Former Secretary Gates quite often tells the story of when he was visiting Kabul, Afghanistan, and walked by an office where there was a red phone, and Secretary Gates said: What is that? They said: That is our line to the NSC. My friends, we have 30-something staffers at the NSC who are giving directions as to how to carry out operations in the field. It is simply outrageous. By the way, it not only has an effect on morale but also on the ability to address the challenges on the battlegrounds. For years after the end of the Cold War, the United States enjoyed a near monopoly on advanced military technology, such as stealth, precision-guided munitions, unmanned systems, and the advanced communications that enable network-centric warfare. That is changing rapidly. From China and Russia to Iran and North Korea, we see militaries that are developing, fielding, and employing long-range, precision-guided weapons, advanced fighter aircraft, anti-access and aerial denial systems, and growing space in cyber capabilities. The result is that we are at real and increasing risk of losing the military technological dominance that we have taken for granted for 30 years. That is why 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, 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 disestablishes AT&L and divides its duties between two new offices, a new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, and an Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment. The job of research and engineering will be developing defense technologies that can ensure a new era of U.S. qualitative military dominance. The job of acquisition and sustainment will focus on the execution of acquisition functions, ensuring compliance, and lowering risks to taxpayers. God knows we need to lower risks to taxpayers. These organizational changes complement the additional acquisition reforms in the NDAA. The legislation creates new pathways for the Department of Defense to do business with nontraditional defense firms. It streamlines regulations to procure goods and services. It provides new authorities for the rapid prototyping, acquisition, and fielding of new capabilities, and, critically, the NDAA establishes a preference for fixed-price contracts. The overuse of cost-type 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. Continuing down the path of reform, the NDAA initiates a comprehensive modernization of the military health care system to provide beneficiaries with higher quality care, better access to care, and a better experience of care. The NDAA includes provisions that expand DOD telehealth capabilities, reform TRICARE health care plans, modernize TRICARE medical support contracts, streamline the administration of the Defense Health Agency and military medical treatment facilities, and establish high-performance military-civilian integrated health delivery systems. The NDAA ensures we maintain battlefield medicine as a pocket of excellence in the military health system by taking steps to improve trauma care in military hospitals and develop enduring partnerships with civilian military centers and hospitals. These reforms constitute an important first step in the evolution of the military health system from an underperforming, disjointed health system into a high- performing, integrated health system that gives beneficiaries what they need and deserve--the right care, at the right time, in the right place. In a world of multiplying threats and increasing danger, we count on young Americans to enlist or commit to serve in the All-Volunteer Force that protects us and our families. The NDAA sustains the quality of life for the men and women and the total force and their families and addresses the needs of our wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers. The NDAA authorizes a 2.2-percent across-the-board pay raise for members of the uniformed services, the largest military pay raise for our troops since 2010. The legislation authorizes over 30 special pays and bonuses to support recruitment and retention and ensures fair treatment for our Reserve members under their survivor benefit plan. The NDAA also addresses a disturbing situation affecting members of the California National Guard who have been caught up in a scandal involving the improper issuance of bonuses. The legislation holds the Department of Defense responsible for expediting the review process, reaching out to each impacted servicemember, and notifying credit reporting agencies when debts have been forgiven. 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. As we implement these important defense reforms, we have to rebuild a modern and ready Armed Forces prepared to meet current and future threats. The NDAA authorizes a total of $619 billion for defense discretionary spending, which is $3.2 billion above President Obama's budget request. That includes the $5.8 billion in supplemental funding requested by President Obama for operations in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. The NDAA prioritizes modernization to provide critical military capabilities to our warfighters, fifth-generation fighter aircraft, stealth attack submarines, vital munitions, more lethal and survivable armored vehicles and helicopters. The legislation also fully supports the modernization of our nuclear triad and makes timely investments in research and development efforts to produce cutting-edge military technologies. Through a combination of added funds and redirected savings, the NDAA directs $4.6 billion to address the military readiness crisis by reducing training shortfalls, supporting weapons maintenance, and sustaining facilities. Critically, the NDAA stems the drawdown of military end strength that has exacerbated the readiness crisis, especially in the Army and Marine Corps. As we meet our commitments to our warfighters, we must also uphold our commitment to American taxpayers. The NDAA imposes strict oversight measures on programs such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber, the Ford-class aircraft carrier, the littoral combat ship. These provisions will ensure accountability for results, promote transparency, protect taxpayers, and drive the Department to deliver our warfighters the capabilities they need on time, as promised, and at a reasonable cost. The NDAA upholds America's commitments to its allies and partners. It authorizes $3.4 billion to support our Afghan partners as they take the fight to our common terrorist enemies. The legislation authorizes $3.4 billion for the European initiative to deter Russian aggression. This is a very critical item, as we see more and more aggressive behavior, both in cyber, propaganda, and actual on-the-ground activities by Vladimir Putin--a fourfold increase from last year in the European deterrence initiative. It provides $1.2 billion for counter-ISIL operations. It authorizes up to $350 million in security assistance to Ukraine, including lethal assistance. One of the things that has disappointed me as much as anything else, in some ways more, is that this President has refused to give defensive weaponry to the Ukrainians who are watching their country be dismembered by Vladimir Putin, the same Vladimir Putin whose anti-air system shot down an airline, the same one who is slaughtering and killing brave Ukrainians as we speak. This President has refused to give them weapons to defend themselves. This will be, again, the third year in a row where we have authorized it. This is another shameful chapter in the history of Obama's feckless administration as far as national defense is concerned. Finally, the legislation includes $600 million to modernize Israel's layered missile defense system. As we continue to support allies and partners against common threats, the NDAA makes major reforms to the Pentagon's complex and unwieldy Security Cooperation Enterprise, which has complicated the ability of the Department of Defense to effectively prioritize, plan, execute, and oversee these activities. The NDAA consolidates security cooperation authorities from Title 10 and elsewhere in public law into a single chapter of U.S. Code. For the first time, this legislation requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a consolidated security cooperation budget, and the legislation modernizes the security cooperation workforce. Together, these steps will improve operational outcomes, program management, congressional oversight, and public transparency. This legislation takes several steps to bolster border security and homeland defense. It authorizes $933 million for Department of Defense counterdrug programs. The legislation codifies the authority of the Secretary of Defense to provide support to Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement for counterdrug and countering transnational organized crime operations. It enhances information sharing and operational coordination between the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. Finally, this legislation takes important steps to strengthen cyber security. The legislation elevates U.S. Cyber Command to a unified command. As our senior military leadership has testified, this step is critical to providing the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command with the necessary unity of command and streamlined decisionmaking. The NDAA also prevents the premature termination of the dual hat arrangement under which the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command also serves as the Director of the National Security Agency. Let me close by saying that we ask a lot of our men and women in uniform. They a never let us down. We must not let them down. So let's be bold on their behalf. This NDAA is an ambitious piece of legislation, but in the times we live in, we can't afford business as usual in the Department of Defense. We can't afford these terrible cost overruns. We just had a hearing on the littoral combat ship. It was supposed to cost $200 million each. Now it costs $460 million each, and it has a 30-millimeter gun and a helicopter pad on it. We cannot do this to the American taxpayers. There was a front page story in the Washington Post just a couple of days ago about some $125 billion that, in the view of an outside study, had been wasted. We cannot continue to do that to the taxpayers of America, and we certainly cannot afford to continue to do it given the challenges we face all over the world, which are unprecedented in the last 70 years. Yesterday, I was honored to be asked to speak at the World War II Memorial commemorating the 75th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. It was an uplifting experience because, thank God, there were so many of our brave warriors who fought and were present in the war that was fought by our greatest generation. There were even a couple who had been on board the USS Arizona, which was sunk with 1,117 brave officers and men on board. You know, one of the lessons at Pearl Harbor was that we were not ready. We were not prepared. The Japanese airplanes that came in and bombed those ships and killed so many brave Americans--we had nothing that could combat them. At that time, the Japanese Zero was so far superior to anything that we had that it was a relatively easy mission for those Japanese Zeros to attack and destroy a good portion of America's Pacific Fleet at that time. What I fear is not another Pearl Harbor, but what I fear is that with sequestration and with the continuing resolution--which apparently we are going to do, although I will fight as hard as I can against it--we are reducing the ability of our men and women to serve this Nation with effectiveness. All of the four service chiefs--every one of them--when asked about sequestration and this kind of continuing resolution, have said one thing: We are putting the lives of the men and women who are serving our Armed Forces in uniform in greater jeopardy. Are we going to take the responsibility here with another continuing resolution to place the lives of the men and women serving this Nation at greater risk? That is a terrible burden--a terrible burden I say to my colleagues, who, maybe because they want to get out of here for Christmas, will be voting for a continuing resolution that again cuts defense spending-- cuts it--reduces it. That is not acceptable in light of the fact, by the way, that the President-elect has said he wants to spend more on defense. The President-elect has said: We are not spending enough. We are not doing enough. By the way, we have to do it right. We need to spend more. We need to do it right. But when we see a front page story on the Washington Post that shows--I think it showed $125 billion was wasted, then we also have an obligation to spend those taxpayer dollars correctly. This legislation, which I urge my colleagues to vote for as followup to last year's, has significant reforms in the way the Pentagon does business. I would like to tell you that now we have reformed the Pentagon and everything is fine. My friends, we have a long way to go. We have a long way to go. I am proud of the bipartisanship that exists on our committee. I am proud of the seriousness with which most--not all, but most--of the members of the committee take their duties as members of the committee. I am proud that my friend and colleague from Rhode Island and I work so closely together, not only we but our staffs, in the spirit that is demanded if we are going to carry out our higher responsibilities to the men who serve. I am not proud--I am not proud--to see sequestration continue, the mindless, across-the-board cuts that have characterized the last few years. It is supported by both sides of the aisle, not just Democrats. I love to blame the Democrats for it, but both Democrats and Republicans have refused to address sequestration, which is destroying the readiness, which is--not destroying--it is harming the readiness of our men and women to serve and fight. Operations are being canceled, parts are not available, the training is not available. It goes on and on and on. Why don't we listen? I am not asking you to listen to the civilians. Ask the leaders that we have asked to be the chiefs of their services. Ask the leaders who are component commands. They will all tell you the same thing: We are going to have to spend more money, but we are also going to have to spend it more wisely. By the way, the Pentagon bureaucracy does not like many of these changes, just as last year we forced these changes on them, and now they all take credit for them. Fine, but now, there is another year of reforms. Next year, we are going to have to do more reforms, but unless we have the funding that is necessary to make these men and women who are serving in our military fully prepared to counter the new challenges, we are going to relive, in some form, December 7, 1941, in the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ``A day that will live in infamy.'' So I ask my colleagues to vote for this NDAA. We have had the input from literally every Member of this body, I am happy to say. I hope they will vote for this legislation. But I also--when they do-- recognize that unless we fund these programs, unless we fund these reforms, unless we provide sufficient funding, then they are not going to be able to carry out their mission in the most effective fashion. I say to my colleagues: Vote for this. Vote for this, but do not vote for another continuing resolution that will harm the ability of us and the men and women who are serving, and their leaders, to defend this Nation. It is a heavy responsibility you take on when you vote for the continuing resolution because that does not allow the Pentagon to move money around. It is an overall cut of many billions of dollars at a time that any observer will tell you is more challenging to our national security than any time since December 7, 1941. I urge my colleagues to vote for the NDAA. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a colloquy between myself and the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to join my friend and colleague on this issue that is of transcendent importance to America's relationship with our friends and allies--literally placing Americans and American companies and corporations and governments in great danger--particularly governments. I would just like to mention in passing, if my colleague will indulge me very quickly, because I have here in front of me--and I will ask that it be included in the Record--statements from the President of the United States, the Director of the CIA, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense, all on this issue we are talking about. The leaders of our government, from the President on down, including the heads of our most important defense agencies, have expressed--and I will quote them in just a minute. My friends, Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA. It was well-intentioned to allow claims against foreign governments that might be complicit in terrorist attacks against the United States. The spirit behind the legislation is noble. Any foreign government behind the attack on our homeland or our citizens must be held accountable. But it has become clear that the unintended consequences of this legislation are quite grave. As it exists now, JASTA presents a significant risk to the United States and our military and diplomatic personnel serving across the globe. As it currently exists, as my colleague from South Carolina will explain in greater detail, JASTA undermines a fundamental international norm of sovereign immunity that protects governments from being sued in court except in narrow circumstances. If this law is not narrow--and please, my colleagues, understand, the Senator from South Carolina and I are not for abolishing this law; we are for putting in a scope that protects the United States of America; that is, if we allow our laws to target governments indiscriminately, we will expose our country to grave risk and undermine our ability to pursue justice in a complex world. No country in the world stands to lose more from an erosion of these legal standards than the United States of America. The United States has more bases and more forward-deployed personnel protecting peace and security than any other country. JASTA now gives these countries an incentive to bring these brave men and women to court to answer for U.S. counterterrorism policies. If other countries pass similar legislation, it means the United States and American soldiers, diplomats, and intelligence officers serving in some of the world's most dangerous and difficult countries will be forced to justify their actions and defend the policies we have made to defend this country before courts that may not share our standards of due process and fairness. Our allies will wonder if it is wise to join our coalitions to fight terrorism if they, too, will face legal liability in courts around the world. Thus, we are faced with the twisted irony that the men and women who put themselves in harm's way to bring the 9/11 attackers to justice and to defeat those who still seek to attack the United States are the people placed directly at risk by JASTA. We must be concerned with the diplomatic and economic fallout of this law. Our allies and partners around the world, particularly those who struggle with terrorism at home, now wonder when they might be hauled in to courts for terrorist actions. They face potential court-ordered damages and asset seizures. Their citizens and companies doing business in the United States are at risk. It is only reasonable that these countries will consider pulling their assets and resources out of the United States out of fear. In short, JASTA could cause our allies in the fight against terrorism to distance themselves from us as a country that most needs their support against those who mean to do us harm. Now I would like to provide some quotes. Our Nation's top national security officials have issued statements and written to Congress to warn us about the unintended consequences of JASTA. Let's begin with President Obama. I will quote from his letter from White House. He wrote: JASTA . . . would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks. Doing so would instead threaten to erode sovereign immunity principles that protect the United States, including our U.S. Armed Forces and other officials, overseas. I will admit that Senator Graham and I have a special relationship with the men and women who are serving--his 22 years as a member of the U.S. Air Force Reserve and every year going to Iraq or Afghanistan; I obviously have sons who have served. I don't want to see my sons or anybody else's sons in court because they might have violated a sovereign nation the way that we are saying JASTA affects our country. Enacting JASTA into law, however, would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks. Doing so would instead threaten to erode sovereign immunity principles that protect the United States, including our U.S. Armed Forces and other officials, overseas. The Secretary of Defense wrote: U.S. Servicemembers stationed here and overseas, and especially those supporting our counterterrorism efforts, would be vulnerable to private individuals' accusations that their activities contributed to acts alleged to violate a foreign state's law. He continued to say that, whether guilty or innocent, ``the mere allegation of their involvement could subject them to a foreign court's jurisdiction and the accompanying litigation and intrusive discovery process that goes along with defending against such lawsuits. . . . Our servicemembers might be required to testify about or provide documents on operations that they are obligated under U.S. law not to disclose, exposing them to punishment for contempt by the foreign court, including imprisonment.'' According to the Secretary of Defense, we could be risking imprisonment for the men and women who are serving in our military overseas. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--I think we all respect the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Here is his view: Any legislation that risks reciprocal treatment by foreign governments would increase the vulnerability of U.S. Servicemembers to foreign legal action while acting in an official capacity. In those cases . . . the Servicemember could be held in civil, or criminal, contempt should he or she refuse to appear or otherwise comply with the foreign court's orders. The Secretary of State, John Kerry, wrote: JASTA could encourage foreign courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States or U.S. officials. The same thing. The Director of CIA wrote: (JASTA) will have grave implications for the national security of the United States. The most damaging consequence would be for those US Government officials who dutifully work overseas on behalf of our country. The principle of sovereign immunity protects US officials every day, and is rooted in reciprocity. If we fail to uphold this standard for other countries, we place our own nation's officials in danger. No country has more to lose from undermining that principle than the United States--and few institutions would be at greater risk than the CIA. Which certainly makes sense. So here we have the Director of the CIA, the Vice President of the United States, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense--all want us to narrow the interpretation of this law. What does it require? Whose word more do you want? All I am saying is that we need to narrow the law. We must make it clear that countries will not be held responsible for rogue actions of their citizens. Unless we can show that a nation knowingly assists a terrorist group, sovereign nations should not be dragged into our courts. If we don't fix JASTA, our ability to defend ourselves will be undermined and the people we ask to go into harm's way on our behalf will be placed in jeopardy. America must pursue justice, but in the long run, JASTA will make it harder, not easier, to bring terrorists to justice and prevent terrorism in the first place. We need to fix this law. I ask my colleague, let's make it clear, are we asking to have this law repealed? Are we asking that people in countries that are responsible for acts of terror to be let off the hook? Are we trying to say committing acts of terror can be sponsored by any nation and we will turn the other way? That is basically the argument that is being mounted in sometimes hysterical fashion, and what we are trying to do is to ensure that a government must knowingly--maybe not even have done it themselves but knowingly. Isn't that the key, particularly coming from someone with your background as an officer trained in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the International Rule of Law?

Mr. McCAIN. I have another scenario--drone strikes. We commit drone strikes literally everywhere in the Middle East where we find there are terrorists who are capable of mounting attacks on the United States of America. They are precision strikes, but on many occasions, civilians, as collateral damage, have also been killed. Those are just facts. What exposure are we subject to now?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, isn't it logical to say that you shouldn't hold a government of a country liable if something happened by attack from their country or by one of their citizens that we didn't know about? I mean, this is why I am confused as to why that just doesn't have a logical aspect to it. We don't want to hold people who are not guilty liable for damages.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is not the opinion of the Senator from South Carolina and myself. This is the opinion of the President of the United States. This is the opinion of the Secretary of Defense. This is the opinion of the Secretary of State. This is the opinion of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. This is the opinion of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I have had a lot of support in my time on various issues. I cannot remember a time in the last 30 years where literally every leader in government has come out in the strongest possible fashion not to do away with JASTA but to fix it so the United States of America itself is not put in jeopardy as other nations adopt this same law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters from the President of the United States, the Secretary of State of the United States, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to pay attention to the most respected individuals in this country and pay attention to why they object, not to the entire bill but to the provisions that would, as Director Brennan said, cause the most damaging consequences for those U.S. Government officials who dutifully work overseas on behalf of our country. The Director of the CIA said that the principle of sovereign immunity protects U.S. officials every day and is rooted in reciprocity. If we fail to uphold the standard for other countries, we place our own Nation's officials in danger. No country has more to lose from undermining that principle than the United States. Mr. Brennan adds that few institutions would be at greater risk than the CIA. I urge my colleagues not to abolish JASTA, but let's fix it because the people we respect and admire the most and to whom we give the responsibilities to defend this Nation have unanimously argued that we need this fixed. I say to the President: I fear the profound consequences that may arise if we, with the best of intentions, do great, great damage to this Nation and its security. I yield the floor.