John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I know the Senator from Utah is waiting. We have a choice: Believe those who have a vested interest in continuing this purchase of Russian rocket engines or believe some of the most respected people in America who say we don't need to do it. That is what the choice is here. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland. She is tough and principled, a great representative of her State, and she has been a friend for many years. I thank her for her words. I also respectfully, obviously, disagree. This vote is obviously one that places domestic considerations on the same plane as national security. As we look around the world, I think it is pretty obvious that since 2011--the world was a very different place when sequestration was enacted. We need to have a military that is prepared to fight and is not unready, planes that can fly, ships that can sail, and men and women who are trained to fight. All of those have been impacted by sequestration. With the Director of National Intelligence telling the Armed Services Committee and the world that there will be attacks in Europe and the United States of America, we cannot afford an $18 billion cut from last year and an over $100 billion cut since 9/11. Every one of our military leaders has told us that we are putting the men and women who are serving in uniform at greater risk. That is not fair to them, I say to the Senator from Maryland. It is not fair. So I don't put our domestic needs on the same plane as our national security. I believe our national security is our first obligation, and that is what my amendment is all about. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes on the Democratic side and 3 minutes on my side prior to the second vote.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, facts are stubborn things. They add $7 billion. We want $18 billion to restore the cuts from last year. So I say to the Senator from Maryland: Facts are stubborn things. The fact is this amendment increases spending by $18 billion, which brings us up to last year's level. Look at how the world has changed in the last year. Look at the commitments that this Nation has assumed as a result of a failed Obama foreign policy. It increases the military pay raise to 2.1 percent. The current administration budgets 1.6. It fully funds our troops in Afghanistan. It stops the cuts to end strength and capacity. For example, it cancels a planned reduction of 15,000 active Army soldiers. It prevents cutting the 10th carrier air wing. It includes additional funding for 36 additional UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters, five Apaches, and five Chinooks. It provides an additional $319 million for Israeli defense programs and $2.2 billion for readiness. We have ships that can't sail and planes that can't fly and pilots that can't train. Do you know our pilots are flying less hours than Russian and Chinese pilots are, thanks to sequestration? It addresses the Navy's ongoing fighter shortfall and USMC aviation readiness. It supports the Navy's shipbuilding programs, necessary to fund the additional DDG-51, and restores the cut of 1 littoral ship. That is the job of the authorizers. You are doing the job of the authorizers, I say to the Senator from Maryland, and that is wrong. It is up to us to authorize, not you. It is your job to fund, not to authorize. So what is a ``no'' vote going to do, my friends? It is going to be a vote in favor of another year where the pay for our troops doesn't keep pace with inflation. In voting no, you are cutting more soldiers and marines in operational requirements. Voting no will be a vote in favor of continuing to shrink the number of aircraft that are available to the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. Voting no would be a vote in favor of letting arbitrary budget caps set the timeline for our mission in Afghanistan. Voting no is a vote in favor of continuing to ask our men and women in uniform to continue to perform more and more tasks. As the Chief of the U.S. Army has said, if we continue these cuts, we are putting the lives of the men and women in the military in danger. If you vote no, don't go home and say you support the military, because you do not. I yield. Cloture Motion

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I withdraw my amendment No. 4229.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 4607.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I believe we are waiting for the Senator from Utah. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, while we are waiting, I believe that one of the Senators is coming to the floor for a unanimous consent request. I would like to talk for a minute with my friend from Rhode Island, the ranking member, about a provision that is being held up, unfortunately, and that has to do with our interpreters, who have literally placed their lives on the line in order to help Americans and literally save American lives. That amendment is being held up for extraneous reasons. The Senator from New Hampshire, I, and everybody on a bipartisan basis, and with fervent pleas from people such as GEN David Petraeus, GEN Stanley McChrystal, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker--later on I will read all of these individuals' letters that are almost wrenching because, in the words of, I believe, General McChrystal, it is not just a regular obligation, it is a moral obligation. Are we going to not allow these people to come to the United States, these people who literally laid their lives on the line for us and saved American lives, in the view of our military leadership who testified to that? General Petraeus wrote a very compelling letter. All the most respected military and diplomatic leaders have asked for this, and it is being held up for extraneous reasons. I alert my colleagues that the Senator from Rhode Island and I are going to ask unanimous consent to move to that amendment because there are 99 votes in favor of it. We cannot do this. We cannot do this to people who are allies. What message does it send to anybody who wants to assist the U.S. military and government--not just the military; the government--in carrying out their responsibilities and missions? If we send the message that we are going to abandon those people, what will happen in the next conflict? What will happen in Afghanistan today? I hope an objection will not take place. I would like to alert my colleagues that in the next 15 or 20 minutes we will be moving that amendment, asking unanimous consent. Anyone who opposes it, I suggest they come to the floor and be prepared to object. This is really a matter of what America is all about. As important as an amendment that is not connected to that is, I don't know of a higher obligation we have than to care for those who have, as I say for the third time, laid their lives on the line and saved American lives in our pursuit of trying to achieve our goals. So I would alert my colleagues that in 15 minutes we will be proposing a unanimous consent agreement to pass that amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, may I say to my very modest friend from Rhode Island that anything that has the McCain name on it has a hyphened name and the Reed name on it because what we have accomplished in the Senate Armed Services Committee would be absolutely impossible without the partnership we have. I cannot express adequately my appreciation for the cooperation and the friendship we have developed over many years. As I have said probably 200 times, despite his poor education, he has overcome that and has been a very great contributor to----

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, hopefully we are going to pass the resolution that will allow interpreters to come to the United States under a special program. I have received letters, and correspondence from literally every military leader and diplomatic leader who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record copies of those letters and correspondence.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think it is very obvious that in the authorization bill we placed limitations on the use of Russian rocket engines. It is already known that in the appropriations bill there is basically an unlimited purchase of Russian rocket engines, much to the testimony of the military-industrial-congressional complex. I will be showing how Russians who have been sanctioned by the United States of America, under Vladimir Putin, will directly profit from the continued purchase of these Russian rocket engines. And in the negotiations that I have been trying to move forward so I could satisfy the appropriators, there is no doubt who has the veto power. We know who they are talking to--the people I am negotiating with--Boeing, Lockheed, and the outfit called ULA, which is the two of them. This is a classic example of the influence of special interests over the Nation's priorities. But more importantly, they are so greedy that they were willing to put millions of dollars into the pockets of these individuals, two of whom have been sanctioned by the United States of America and one of whom has been sanctioned by the EU--cronies of Vladimir Putin. It is really remarkable, this nexus of special interests that end up profiting for these individuals millions of dollars, which I will talk about in a minute. Really, my friends, I say again that this is why we see the American people being cynical about Washington--this tight relationship between this conglomerate of two of the biggest defense industries in America-- Boeing and Lockheed--and we end up with an expenditure of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. It is really remarkable. In the authorization bill we put a strict limit on it, and in the Committee on Appropriations, which we already know about, it is basically an open door. So that is why I was trying and will continue to try to have a simple amendment which says that we will not provide money to any company or corporation that would then profit these people who have been sanctioned by the United States of America in two cases, and in one case by the European Union. Why have they been sanctioned? Because of their invasion of the Ukraine. So when we talk about things that are unsavory, this is probably one of the most unsavory issues I have been involved in during my many years here. It was 2 years ago when Vladimir Putin began his campaign in Eastern Europe, dismembering a sovereign nation. Today, we are facing an increasingly belligerent Russian Government, and we know that Putin continues to occupy Ukraine, he threatens our NATO allies, and he bombs U.S.-backed forces in Syria that are fighting against Bashar Assad's murderous regime. His tactical fighter jets buzz, with impunity, U.S. ships in the Baltic, putting the lives of U.S. personnel at risk, and all the while American taxpayers continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize Russia's military industrial complex. You don't have to take my word for it. You don't have to take my word for it. Here is a letter I received a few days ago. And let me tell you who has signed it before I read it: The Honorable Leon Panetta, former Secretary of Defense; GEN Michael Hayden, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, former Director of the National Security Agency; Michael J. Morell, former Deputy Director and Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Michael Rogers, former chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; ADM James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander at NATO. These individuals have some credibility--more on this issue, I think, than almost anybody else. Let me tell you what they write. And this letter is to Senator Reed and me: We write to endorse the bipartisan effort you both have led to include language in the National Defense Authorization Act to phase out U.S. reliance on Russian technology for the space launch systems that deliver our vital and most sensitive satellites. They go on to talk about how important reliable access to space is. I am continuing to quote now from their letter: Fortunately, we now have an American industrial base with multiple providers that can produce All-American-made rocket engines. And these are people such as the head of the Central Intelligence Agency saying, ``There is no need to rely on Putin's Russia for this sensitive, critical technology.'' The letter goes on to talk about Russia's aggressive intervention in Ukraine and Crimea, and meddling in Syria. Quoting again from the letter: The threat from Russia is rising, as the committee knows well. Last summer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford said that Russia poses an ``existential'' threat to the United States, calling Russia's actions ``nothing short of alarming.'' The list goes on and on about other things. But here is a very important point from these experts: For years, Russia has helped fund its growing military with capital derived from the sale of rocket engines to the United States. Russian officials have referred to U.S. purchases of these engines as ``free money'' for modernizing its missile sector, and have frequently leveraged the Department of Defense's dependence on these engines as a bargaining chip in unrelated foreign policy disputes. They go on to talk about the Defense authorization bill for the last 2 years passing new legislation to address this national security challenge. And they say: Under a proposed congressional transition plan, the Russian engine would be phased out no earlier than 2020. We believe this proposed policy is wise and would prevent unnecessary expenditures on Russian-made rocket engines in support of Russia's industrial base. This policy guarantees assured access to space by increasing reliance on existing, American-made systems, providing an eminently reasonable solution to ending Russia's involvement in the Department of Defense's space launch program. I want to tell my colleagues that this comes from both sides-- Republican and Democrat administrations--and from some of the most reliable intelligence people we have ever had serve our country: Leon Panetta, General Hayden, Michael Morell, Michael Rogers, Admiral Stavridis. I have heard from many others in the same way. So here we are with a clear influence of ULA, which is Lockheed and Boeing--two of the largest defense industries in America with, guess what, their launches in Alabama and, guess what, their headquarters in Illinois. Guess who is leading the charge to continuing to place basically unending dependence on Russian rockets. Guess who. You can draw your own conclusion. So let me go on. Let's talk about these individuals for a minute. I would like to discuss how continuing to buy these RD-180 engines would have us do business with a Russian Government and directly enrich Putin's closest friends who are a group of corrupt cronies and government apparatchiks, including persons the United States and the European Union have sanctioned in relation to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea. With the swift stroke of a pen just a few days ago, on May 12, 2016, Putin signed a decree that reorganized Russia's entire Russian space industry and consolidated all of its assets under a massive ``state corporation'' called Roscosmos. Under Putin's directive, Roscosmos swallows up these other outfits--the Russian launch company that supplies the rockets to, guess who, United Launch Alliance. This new state-owned space corruption, in fact, swallows up dozens of other Russian companies. To be clear, Roscosmos is not a privately owned corporation facilitating business with the Russian Government. It is the Russian Government. As a state corporation, it furthers state policy and is controlled by apparatchiks who have agency authority from Putin to do his bidding. So there should be no confusion; Roscosmos is part of the very same military industrial base that conducts bloody operations in Ukraine and Syria. Under Roscosmos, Putin is no longer using Russian shell companies or offshore corporations to sell Russian rocket engines to line the pockets of his most trusted friends. Roscosmos is directly controlled by many of them. If you look at their highest level, the individuals who control the company look like a who's who of U.S. sanctions-- officers and directors who have been individually sanctioned by the United States or the European Union or control other companies that have been similarly sanctioned in connection with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Let's start with Sergey Chemezov. There he is. Sergey Chemezov is the man at the very top of this chart. Chemezov is the most influential member of the Roscosmos supervisory board and appears to finance operations of Roscosmos through a bank he controls as part of his giant, state-owned defense corporation, Rostec. As CEO of Rostec, Chemezov controls roughly two-thirds of Russia's defense sector and employs more than 900,000 people, which is approximately 1.2 percent of the whole Russian workforce. This has led some in the Russian government to refer to him as the ``shadow defense industry minister.'' More importantly, Sergey Chemezov is a former KGB agent who was stationed with Putin in Communist East Germany during the 1980s. The two lived together in an apartment complex in Dresden. Chemezov is said to be Putin's KGB mentor. Chemezov acknowledges that his ties to Putin gave him a competitive business advantage, but the truth is that his meteoric rise was fueled by a series of Kremlin-backed takeovers of prominent Russian companies, and now Roscosmos has been added to the list. Both Chemezov and his state-owned defense corporation Rostec are targeted by U.S. sanctions. I repeat, they and his company are targeted by U.S. sanctions, as is the Rostec-owned bank Novikombank, which finances Roscosmos's operations. Next in the organizational chart we have Igor Komarov, who will serve as Roscosmos' chief executive officer. He has been sanctioned by the European Union. Recently, he was the head of Russia's largest car manufacturer. This car manufacturer also happened to be taken over by Chemezov's behemoth defense corporation Rostec, and Chemezov later served on the company's board as both chairman and deputy chairman. Komarov is Chemezov's protege. To put it simply, Chemezov handpicked Komarov--a man with little or no experience in the space industry--to run Roscosmos. Chemezov leveraged his position as CEO of Rostec and his access to Putin to make sure that Roscosmos's new head is someone he can control. This gives Chemezov the ability to manage Roscosmos from the shadows, much as he has done with Russia's defense industry. Think of Komarov's relationship to Chemezov as Dmitry Medvedev's relationship to Putin. Finally, we have Dmitry Rogozin. Yet another target of U.S. sanctions, Rogozin has served as Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation and as the so-called space czar since 2011. Remember, he has been sanctioned by the United States of America; he is now the space czar in Russia. He is also the chairman of Roscosmos's board of directors and has overseen the transition of Roscosmos into its new form, a massive state-owned corporation. Not surprisingly, during his tenure, Rogozin has been part of a period of unprecedented corruption. He has publicly acknowledged ``a systemic crisis from which the space agency is yet to emerge.'' He also attributes recent financial scandals and criminal activities to a ``moral decline of space industry managers.'' I want to emphasize this. These are Rogozin's words, not mine. The Russian space czar, who has overseen the restructuring of Roscosmos, publicly admits that individuals running the state-owned corporation are hopelessly and fatally corrupt. In May 2015, the Russian Audit Chamber reported that in fiscal year 2014 alone, Roscosmos misallocated approximately $1.8 billion. In fact, the money wasn't misallocated; it simply disappeared. The report cited gross financial violations, such as improper use of funds, misuse of appropriated funds, and violations in financial reporting methods. The number was so high that Russian auditors at first thought they must be wrong. They finally concluded that ``[the original Roscosmos organization] is among the biggest and least disciplined [of government agencies] that blatantly ignore regulatory requirements and best practices in state procurement orders.'' And this is from Russia's own internal government watchdog, the rough equivalent of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO. My friends, as conscientious Americans, we simply cannot continue to do business with this group of self-admitted swindlers and crooks. We cannot support a Russian space agency that is financed by a sanctioned Russian bank, owned by a sanctioned Russian defense company, and controlled by a sanctioned Russian CEO who also happens to be a former KGB agent and close personal friend of Vladimir Putin's. It is time we found the moral courage to end our reckless dependency on Russian technology before the Russian Government ends it for us. Rogozin has already threatened to cut off our access to space. Just last year, he declared: We are not going to deliver the RD-180 engines if the United States will use them for non-civil purposes. We also may discontinue servicing the engines that were already delivered to the United States. Despite these threats, we still manage to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to Chemezov, Komarov, Rogozin, and countless other Russian stooges just like them. We continue to supply Vladimir Putin with the very capital he needs to wage his deadly shadow war in Europe and the Middle East. We don't need to buy any more engines from Russia. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Director of National Intelligence have all testified to that point before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Former Secretary of Defense and Director of the CIA Leon Panetta, former CIA Director and NSA Director Michael Hayden, former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell, and others, including the former European Command commander and others, all endorse our efforts in this bill to responsibly end our reliance on Russian rocket engines. I am here to tell you that we are subsidizing the Russian military industrial complex at the expense of our own national interests, and we must end this dangerous addiction before it is too late. So here we are, my friends, with a blatant, incredible story of people who are so involved in the Russian invasion of Ukraine that they were sanctioned. They were sanctioned by the United States of America and other countries. They are now in charge of the Russian rocket program. They are the ones into whose pockets go the hundreds of millions of dollars we spend on these Russian rockets. We have this incredible alliance of Boeing and United that is unbelievable in this consortium of the two biggest defense industries in America that has such control over this body that we will continue to subsidize and pay hundreds of millions of American dollars to corrupt crooks--people and money that will fuel Putin's activities. And we all know that his indiscriminate bombing in Syria is slaughtering thousands of innocent people and driving thousands into refugee situations. It is Vladimir Putin who is bombing the people we train and equip. By the way, as we might have seen in the last couple of days, Bashar al-Assad has said that there is going to be no peace, that he is going to regain control of the entire country of Syria, making a farce and a joke out of the so-called ceasefire that was orchestrated by our Secretary of State, who went to Moscow on bended knee to beg his buddy Lavrov to agree to a ceasefire that really never existed. The point is, we do have a supply of rocket engines. Admittedly, they are more expensive. I will freely admit that. But we also have a number of other corporations--not just SpaceX but Blue Origin, and there are a number of others--that are developing rocket engines. If we look at what SpaceX just did, they were able to land a rocket for the first time so it is reusable. Their space launch--they were reusing it. There will be other breakthroughs thanks to these entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and others who are taking charge, when this old consortium, this old military industrial complex called ULA, is running things and we are paying them $800 million a year to do nothing but stay in business. My friends, I would also point out one other aspect of this. The Appropriations Committee's job is to appropriate. It is the authorizing committee that does the authorizing. What was in the appropriations bill in numerous places was a gross violation of the area of responsibility of the authorizing committee. I don't know exactly what we can do about this creeping policymaking on the part of the appropriators, but I hope that at some point--the majority on both sides are not members of the Appropriations Committee, but they are members of various authorizing committees. Sooner or later, they are going to get tired of authorizing certain programs and authorizing after debate and hearings and all the things that--for example, I guarantee you that the Senate Armed Services Committee has had 10 times the number of hearings and debates and amendments and markups that the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has had. I guarantee you that. So they take it upon themselves on an issue such as this to put in their own version, which is obviously controlled by Alabama and Illinois. So that is what is wrong with this system. That is what is wrong with this body. That is what is wrong. And the American people are beginning to figure it out, and they don't like it, and they shouldn't like it. I pointed out yesterday--and lost a vote--that in 1992 we spent $20 million on medical research out of the Defense appropriations, out of American tax dollars. Today, it is $1 billion worth of medical research, most of which has nothing to do with the men and women who are serving this country. I note the presence of the Senator from Colorado. I am sure he may even know these individuals. I would like for him to meet them, because they are crooks. They are crooks, they are corrupt, and they are butchers. So I would like for him to meet them as he continues to advocate for the status quo, which is a totally unacceptable expenditure of American tax dollars which, indeed, are used to kill Americans. That is a heavy responsibility, I would say to my new friend in the Senate, the Senator from Colorado. That is a heavy responsibility. These guys are killing people, and we are subsidizing these murderers and thugs. That is not something I would be proud of. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. For the sake of illustration, I would like to quote from a couple of the letters I have. One is from General Nicholson, who today is our commander of resolute support, United States Forces- Afghanistan. I won't read the whole letter, but I would like to quote it because I think it is very compelling. General Nicholson says: During my previous three tours in Afghanistan, I have seen many Afghans put themselves and their families at risk to assist our forces in pursuit of stability for their country. The stories of these interpreters and translators are heart- wrenching. They followed and supported our troops in combat at great personal risk, ensuring the safety and effectiveness of Coalition members on the ground. Many have been injured or killed in the line of duty, a testament to their commitment, resolve, and dedication to support our interests. Continuing our promise of the American dream is more than in our national interest, it is a testament to our decency and long- standing tradition of honoring our allies. I would like to repeat General Nicholson's last sentence: ``Continuing our promise of the American dream is more than in our national interest, it is a testament to our decency and long-standing tradition of honoring our allies.'' I could not put it any better than General Nicholson did. Finally, I would like to quote from a letter by General Campbell, who was his predecessor. General Campbell said: I am writing you to express my strongest support for the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program. Since our arrival in Afghanistan, U.S. Forces have relied upon our Afghan partners, especially our linguists, to perform our mission. They have consistently been there with us through the most harrowing ordeals, never wavering in their support of our soldiers, our mission, and their own country. Many have been injured or killed in the line of duty. Unfortunately, their support of our mission has resulted in our Afghan partners facing threats from insurgent groups throughout the country. They frequently live in fear that they or their families will be targeted for kidnappings and death. Many have suffered this fate already. The SIV program offers hope that their sacrifices on our behalf will not be forgotten. Again, those are two compelling statements. I will not go further because I see the distinguished Senator from Georgia waiting, but I would like to quote from correspondence from an individual who I think is the finest military leader among the many outstanding military leaders whom I have had the opportunity of knowing. This is from GEN David Petraeus, Retired. It is a letter he wrote. He said: Throughout my time in uniform, I saw how important our in- country allies are in the performance of our missions. Many of our Afghan allies have not only been mission-essential-- serving as the eyes and ears of our own troops and often saving American lives--they have risked their own and their families' lives in the line of duty. Protecting these allies is as much a matter of American national morality as it is American national security. I ask for your help in meeting our obligation by appropriating additional Afghan SIVs to bring our allies to safety in America. It is signed ``Sincerely, David Petraeus.'' Both of the individuals I just quoted served multiple tours--not one, not two, sometimes as many as five--in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 14 years. These leaders know what the service and sacrifice of these Afghans and Iraqis have provided to our military at the very risk and loss of their lives since they are the No. 1 target of the Taliban in Afghanistan. I hope my colleagues, by voice vote, will agree to increase the visa program so that we can allow these people to come to the United States of America. I will end with this. I know that some people come to our country whom we have some doubts about--their citizenship, their commitment to democracy, their adequacy, the kind of people they are. Well, these people have already proven their allegiance to the United States of America because they have put their lives on the line. Some of them had their family members murdered. I have no doubt as to what kind of citizens of this country they will be. I believe that an overwhelming majority of my colleagues agree that, as General Nicholson said in his letter, it is a moral obligation. I think we will all feel better after we get this done. I note the presence of probably the most well-informed Member of the U.S. Senate on budgetary issues, the Senator from Georgia. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. McCAIN. Senator Moran first.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, just to continue--and I do with some reluctance--on this whole issue of rocket engines, as I mentioned earlier, there is an individual who is one of the head executives of ULA who was recorded, and in the recording he talks about ULA and the relationship and how they have an ``in'' with the Department of Defense, and I just want to quote from his recording. He was talking about the rocket engine. He said: But unfortunately, it's built by the Soviet Union, and there's a couple of people, one person in particular, this guy right here, John McCain, who basically doesn't like us. Remember, this is an employee of ULA. He continues: He's like this with Elon Musk, and so Elon Musk says, why don't you guys go, why don't you go after United Launch Alliance and see if you can get that engine to be outlawed. So he was able to get legislation through that basically got our number of engines down that we could use for national security space competitions down to four; we needed nine. . . . And so, then, we got his friend, I told you about that big factory down in Alabama, in Decatur, and basically this is Richard Shelby, Senator Richard Shelby, from Alabama, both Republicans, and he basically at the last minute, at December of last year, they were doing an omnibus bill to keep the government running. And what he did is talk to John McCain and parachuted in, in the middle of the night, and added some language into the appropriations. . . . Shelby's in charge of appropriations. He says ignore McCain's language and basically allowed United Launch Alliance to pick any engine they want from any country abroad. Then he goes on to say: But we can't afford that any more because the price points are coming down as low as 60 million dollars per launch vehicle, and on the best day you'll see us bid at 125 million dollars, or twice that number, and if you were to take and add in that capabilities cost, it's closer to 200 million dollars. . . . SpaceX will take them to court if they don't, so they have demonstrated ability to say, if you do not allow us to compete on an apples-to-apples basis, that we will take you to court, and you will lose. So if you saw just recently, they bid the second GPS-III launch, ULA opted to not bid that. Because the government was not happy with us not bidding that contract because they had felt that they'd bent over backwards to lean the field in our advantage. I repeat, this is what an executive of ULA said. ``Because the government was not happy with us not bidding that contract because they had felt that they'd bent over backwards to lean the field in our advantage.'' That is from an executive of ULA. Is there any better evidence of what he said? Continuing the quote from the recording: But we even said we don't bid, because we saw it as a cost sheet up between us and SpaceX, so now we're going to have to take and figure out how to bid these things much lower cost. And the government can't just say ULA's got a great track record, they've got 105 launches in a row, and 100 percent mission success and we can give it to them on a silver platter even though their costs are two or three times as high. Two or three times as high. Mr. President, this is what makes the American people cynical about the way we do business. Before I suggest the absence of a quorum, let me just say that we are going to be moving the amendments on interpreters and Guantanamo, and so I alert my colleagues that we will be doing that shortly. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, after discussions with the Senator from New Hampshire, the Senator from Missouri, the Senator from South Carolina, and the Senator from Kansas, I ask unanimous consent to have a colloquy with these Senators.

Mr. McCAIN. We are going to propose a unanimous consent request that the Senate take up and pass both the issue of the interpreters to our Afghan allies and the issue of Guantanamo Bay. I know there is objection, so we will await those individuals since it would require their presence on the floor. I will say a few words about the SIV Program. The fact is, the Senator from Colorado, maybe the Senator from Alabama, maybe the Senator from someplace else, has an axe to grind here: They didn't get a vote on their amendment. They didn't get their vote, so, by God, nobody is going to get a vote. Do you know what they neglect here? We are talking about our men and women in the military who literally saved their lives. And they are using their parochial reasons, because they didn't get their vote, to object. My friends, that is not what the job of a United States Senator should be. GEN David Petraeus: Throughout my time in uniform, I saw how important our in- country allies are in the performance of our missions. Many of our Afghan allies have not only been mission-essential-- serving as the eyes and ears of our own troops and often saving American lives--they have risked their own lives and their families' lives in the line of duty. Protecting these allies is as much a matter of American national morality as it is American national security. So the Senators who have come and objected disagree with an effort we are making on the issue of American national morality, in the eyes of GEN David Petraeus. General Nicholson is over there now. He says basically the same thing: They followed and supported our troops in combat at great personal risk, ensuring the safety and effectiveness of Coalition members on the ground. Many have been injured or killed in the line of duty, a testament to their commitment, resolve, and dedication to support our interests. Continuing our promise of the American dream is more than in our national interests, it is a testament to our decency and long-standing tradition of honoring our allies. That is from General Nicholson, who is over there now. There is no more admired diplomat in America than Ryan Crocker. He states: This is a very personal issue for me. I was U.S. Ambassador to Iraq from 2002 to 2009 and to Afghanistan from 2011 to 2012. I observed firsthand the courage of the citizens who risked their lives trying to help their own countries by helping the United States. It takes a special kind of heroism for them to serve alongside of us. GEN Stanley McChrystal: I ask for your help in upholding this obligation by appropriating additional Afghan SIVs to bring our allies to safety in America. They have risked their own and their families' lives in the line of duty. I will stop with this. General Campbell says the same thing: They frequently live in fear that they are or their families will be targeted for kidnappings and death. Many have suffered this fate already. The SIV program offers hope that their sacrifices on our behalf will not be forgotten. I would hope that a Senator who comes to object to this act of humanitarian--a moral obligation, as stated by these respected military leaders, that they wouldn't object because they didn't get a vote on their amendment. That would be a reason to stop this act that is a moral obligation of this country? Well, if they come over and object, then they have their priorities badly screwed up. If these people are killed, they will have nobody to answer to but their families. I hope we will pass this by unanimous consent and not have--for a parochial, their own selfish reason--some Senator come and object. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen.

Mr. McCAIN. There are a number of Members on both sides of the aisle who have had the honor of serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and particularly some of the newer members have added enormously to the Armed Services Committee. There is also one member of the committee who I believe, in his many years of Active Duty, has served in Afghanistan as many as 33 times. He has had an up close and personal relationship with these brave interpreters who literally put their lives on the line in assisting people like Colonel Graham and all others as they were able to accomplish their mission, which they would not have been able to do if it had not been for the outstanding service and sacrifice of these interpreters. Senator Graham.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we will have a vote around 11:30 a.m. on my amendment that would increase funding under OCO to address the consequences of an $18 billion shortfall from last year. All the reports we hear from the military are that sequestration is killing them. The mismatch of what we are now seeing in the world as compared with a continued $150 billion less than fiscal year 2011 is putting the lives of the men and women who are serving this Nation in danger. I am told there will be a lot of people who will vote against this increase to bring it up just to last year's number--an increase of $18 billion. I say to my colleagues: If you vote no on this amendment, the consequences will be on your conscience. If you ask any leader in uniform today, they will tell you that the lives of the men and women who are serving this Nation in uniform are at risk. I think we have a greater obligation, and that is the men and women who are serving in the military. The Chief of Staff of the United States Army said: We are putting the lives of the men and women serving in uniform at greater risk. That didn't come from John McCain or Lindsey Graham. Talk to any military leader in uniform, and they will tell you that sequestration is killing them. Planes can't fly; parts of the military can't train and equip. Only two of our brigade combat teams are fully ready to fight. Look at the world in 2011 when we started this idiotic sequestration and look at the world today. My colleague serves on the Armed Services Committee and spent about 33 years as a member of the United States military and has been a regular visitor to Kabul and Baghdad. I think he understands that what we are doing with sequestration and voting against this amendment, in my view, is putting the lives of the men and women who are serving in danger. Have no doubt about it. There will be further attacks in Europe, and there will be further attacks in the United States of America. We won't be ready, and the responsibility for it will be on those who vote no on this amendment. I recognize my colleague.

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask my colleague whether he is aware that, at a hearing, General Milley, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, testified that the Army risked not having ready forces available to provide flexible options to our national leadership and, most importantly, risked incurring significantly increased U.S. casualties. I say to my colleagues who are going to vote against this, you are taking on a heavy burden of responsibility of incurring significantly increased U.S. casualties in case of an emergency. The military is not ready. We are at $100 billion less than we were in 2011 when sequestration began, and the world has changed dramatically. I can't tell you my disappointment to hear that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee--I don't know if my colleague knows this--said he is going to vote against it, using some rationale that they are increasing it by some $7 billion. That is insane. That is not only insane, it is irresponsible, and most importantly, it is out of touch. I say to my colleague and the chairman of the subcommittee, you are out of touch with what is going on in the world and in the U.S. military. You better get in touch.

Mr. McCAIN. I also point out to my colleague that, as a sign of priorities around this place, yesterday we had a vote on medical research--nearly $1 billion that had nothing to do with the military but was a place where the Willy Sutton syndrome took place, and it was a 5-percent increase. The appropriators could increase by 5 percent medical research which has nothing to do with the military, but they won't add money that the military could use to defend this Nation. There is no greater example of the priorities around this place. I see my colleagues are waiting. I just want to point out what voting no means. Voting no would be a vote in favor of another year where the pay for our troops doesn't keep pace with inflation or private sector advocates. For the fourth year in a row, the military will receive less of a pay raise than the rate of inflation. If you vote no, that is what you are doing. If you vote no, it would be a vote in favor of cutting more soldiers and more U.S. marines at a time when the operational requirements for our Nation's land forces for the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and Asia are growing. Every time you turn around, you will see that there are more troops deployed in more places, whether it be Iraq, Syria, Libya, the European Reassurance Initiative. Every time you turn around, there is more deployment--more deployments in the Far East and the Asian- Pacific regions. Every time you turn around, there are more obligations that we ask of the military, albeit incrementally. Yet we are going to cut the funding while we increase the commitments we have. So you would be voting in favor of cutting more soldiers and marines at a time when the operational requirements of our Nation's land forces are growing. Voting no would be a vote in favor of continuing to shrink the number of aircraft that are available to the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps at a time when they are already too small to perform their current missions and are being forced to cannibalize. We have people who are having to go to the boneyard in Tucson, AZ, and take parts from planes that haven't been operational for years. That is how bad the system has become thanks to sequestration. Our maintainers--these incredible enlisted people--are working 16 to 18 hours a day trying to keep these planes in the air. When an Air Force squadron came back, of their 20 airplanes, 6 were flyable. There was a piece on FOX News the other day about how, down in Beaufort, SC, the F-18 squadron--they are having to have a plane in the hangar that they can take parts from so that they can keep other planes flying. They are exhausted. They are exhausted, these young marines. And by the way, don't think they are going to stay in when they are subjected to this kind of work environment. Voting no would be a vote in favor of shrinking the number of aircraft. They are too small, and their current missions are being forced to cannibalize their own fleets. Voting no would be a vote in favor of letting arbitrary budget caps set the timeline for our mission in Afghanistan instead of giving our troops and our Afghan partners a fighting chance at victory. Voting no is a vote in favor of continuing to ask our men and women in uniform to perform more and more tasks with inadequate readiness, inadequate equipment, inadequate numbers of people, and unacceptable levels of risk in the missions themselves. It is unfair to them. It is wrong. It is wrong. For the sake of the men and women in the military who put their lives on the line as we seek to defend this Nation, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will make the right choice. For 5 years we have let politics, not strategy, determine what resources we give our military servicemembers. Our military commanders have warned us that we risk sending young Americans into a conflict for which they are not prepared. I know that the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize the mistakes of the past 5 years in creating this danger. This is a reality. This is the reality our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are facing. So I say it doesn't have to be this way. It doesn't have to be this way. And if you vote no, as my colleague from South Carolina said, don't say you are in favor of the military. Don't be that hypocritical. Just say that you are continuing to put the lives of these men and women who are serving in the military, in the words of the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, ``in greater danger.'' That is your responsibility. But just don't say-- don't go home and say how much you appreciate the men and women in the military, because when you vote no, you are depriving them of the ability to defend this Nation and themselves. I yield the floor.