John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Suppose this unanimous consent request is objected to by a Member. Would my colleague say the blood of these interpreters who will be killed and their families murdered is on their hands? Would my friend say that just because they didn't get their amendment--by the way, I offered Senator Lee the chance to bring up his amendment on the issue of women in the Selective Service, and he turned that down. He said he wanted to take up his other amendment first. Let the record be clear that I immediately approached him and asked: When do you want to take up the amendment on Selective Service? He said: That is not my priority. My priority is this one here, which apparently he will object to. If we don't do this and those people are killed by the Taliban because they have to stay in Afghanistan--the Senator from South Carolina would agree they are the No. 1 target--wouldn't you say that those who objected to their having freedom in the United States of America have blood on their hands?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be in order to be offered: Shaheen No. 4604 and Moran No. 4068; I further ask there be 5 minutes equally divided between the managers or their designees and that the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed with no second-degree amendments to these amendments in order prior to the votes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me also mention a couple of facts. As of 10 o'clock this morning, there were 537 amendments that had been filed--537 amendments--which is always the case with the Defense authorization bill. I am sure that every Member who filed those amendments wanted a vote and a debate on every single one of them, as is their right, but the fact is that we can't do that for a whole variety of reasons, including objections, et cetera. So if every Senator blocked every vote because his or her amendment is not being considered, obviously we would never do anything, which is why we have done so little here on this bill. Now we are talking about the lives of men who have put it on the line for the men and women who are serving. Don't we have some sense of perspective and priority here? People are going to die, I tell the Senator from Utah. They are going to die if we don't pass this amendment and take them out of harm's way. Don't you understand the gravity of that? Can't you understand that your issue on extended detaining is an important one, but don't you understand these people's lives are in danger as we speak? They have been marked for death. They have been marked for death. Why do you think General Petraeus and General Nicholson and Ryan Crocker and all our most respected military leaders say with great urgency--they say with urgency that we have to do this because they are going to die. They are going to be killed. Doesn't that somehow appeal to your sense of compassion for these people?

Mr. McCAIN. Let me finish. Don't you understand what is at stake here? Do you respect General Petraeus, General Nicholson, and General McChrystal? Every one of them has written to us and said that these people's lives are in danger and that this is a moral issue. So you are going to object because your amendment is being blocked, as so many amendments are blocked. Many, many amendments are blocked. If that is good or bad, I don't know, but people object. Now we are talking about a compelling humanitarian issue that is far more important than humanitarian because we abandon these people, and you can't expect people in future conflicts or in these conflicts we are in to cooperate and help the United States of America if we are going to abandon them to a cruel and terrible death. This is a serious issue. This is not something that we like to maneuver around what the steering committee wants and how we are going to do all these kinds of things we get mired down in, and we will have the Heritage Foundation write a letter or something like that. This is a matter of life and death, and that issue and challenge is immediate. So I appeal to the Senator from Utah's humanity, for his compassion, for his ability to save lives here, and let this go through, as the most respected military and diplomatic leaders in the world have urged us to do. I appeal to the life-or-death situation that will entail a lot of deaths if you block this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I guess, finally, I woke up in the middle of the night last night thinking about this issue. It made me think of a long time ago when I saw a lot of brave Americans die, some of them in aerial combat. Several times I thought that perhaps I could have prevented their deaths by being a better airman or taking certain actions. It bothers me to this day. I can't imagine how it must bother someone who is literally signing the death warrants of some people who in their innocence decided they would help the United States of America. I could not bear that burden. I believe that what we are doing here by blocking this amendment that allow would these wonderful people, as described by all of our leaders, to leave a place where death is almost certain--at least in the case of some of them--because of some exercise that would have no immediate effect, is that we are blocking this ability to save lives. I do not understand. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on Monday I came to the floor to speak about the important provisions of the NDAA, sweeping reforms to the organization of the Department of Defense, to the Defense Acquisition System, and to the Military Health System. But I noted there was one challenge the Committee on Armed Services could not address in the NDAA: the dangerous mismatch between growing worldwide threats and arbitrary limits on defense spending in current law. This mismatch has very real consequences for the thousands of Americans who are serving in uniform and sacrificing on our behalf all around the Nation and the world. From Afghanistan to Iraq and Syria, from the heart of Europe to the seas of Asia, our troops are doing everything we ask of them, but for too long we in Congress have failed to do everything we can for them. Shamefully, our military is being forced to confront growing threats with shrinking resources. This year's defense budget is more than $150 billion less than fiscal year 2011, before the Budget Control Act imposed arbitrary caps on defense spending. Over the last 5 years as our military has struggled under the threat of sequestration, the world has only grown more complex and dangerous. Since 2011, we have seen Russian forces invade Ukraine, the emergence of the so-called Islamic State and its global campaign of terrorism, increased attempts by Iran to destabilize U.S. allies and partners in the Middle East, growing assertive behavior by China and the militarization of the South China Sea, numerous cyber attacks on U.S. industry and government agencies, and further testing by North Korea of nuclear technology and other advanced military capabilities. Indeed, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified to the Armed Services Committee in February that over the course of his distinguished five-decade career, he could not recall ``a more diverse array of challenges and crises'' than our Nation confronts today. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015--or BBA--provided our military servicemembers with much needed relief from the arbitrary caps on defense spending in the Budget Control Act. The BBA was a credit to the congressional leadership, and many of us supported it as a necessary compromise that provided our military with vital resources for fiscal year 2016 but was more constrained in the resources it could provide for fiscal year 2017. The fact remains that despite periodic relief from the budget caps that have imposed those cuts, including the BBA, each of our military services remains underfunded, undersized, and unready to meet current and future threats. By the end of this fiscal year, the Marine Corps will be reduced to 182,000 marines, even though the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Neller, testified last year that the optimal size for the force is 186,800. Facing a shortage of eight amphibious ships, the Marine Corps has been forced to examine options for deploying forces aboard foreign vessels, and a recent news report revealed the crisis in Marine Corps aviation. Years of budget cuts have left us with a Marine Corps that is too small and has too few aircraft. The aircraft it does have are too old and can barely fly--and only by cannibalizing parts from other aircraft. Pilots cannot train and receive fewer flight hours a month than their Chinese and Russian counterparts. Young marines are working around the clock to keep planes in the air with shrinking resources, knowing that if they fail, their comrades flying and riding in those aircraft could pay a fatal price. Another news report showed what it means to have the oldest, smallest, and least ready Air Force in history, as our Nation now does. The service is short 700 pilots and 4,000 maintainers for its fleet, which is smaller than its mission requirement and lacks the spare parts it needs to keep flying. It is so bad that airmen are stealing parts from retired aircraft in ``the boneyard'' in my home State of Arizona and even museum pieces just to get their planes back into combat. Our aircraft are aging, but even worse, our airmen are left ``burnt out'' and exhausted. This is the predictable consequence of years of relentless operational tempo combined with misguided reductions in defense spending. Today, less than 50 percent of the Air Force's combat squadrons are ready for full-spectrum operations. The Air Force does not anticipate a return to full-spectrum readiness for another decade, and this will only grow worse as budget cuts force the Air Force to retire more aircraft than it procures. The story is similar in the Army. The Army has been reduced by 100,000 soldiers since 2012, bringing the Army to a size that Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley testified has put the Army at ``high military risk.'' As the size of the Army has shrunk, readiness has suffered. Just one-third of Army brigade combat teams are ready to deploy and operate decisively. Indeed, just two--just two--of the Army's 60 brigade combat teams are at the highest level of combat readiness. To buy readiness today, the Army is being forced to mortgage its future readiness and capability by reducing end strength and delaying vital modernization programs, and the result of budget cuts, force reductions, and declining readiness is clear. In an unforeseen contingency, General Milley testified in March that the Army ``risks not having ready forces available to provide flexible options to our national leadership . . . and most importantly, [risks] incurring significantly increased U.S. casualties.'' I repeat, ``significantly increased U.S. casualties.'' U.S. casualties are the men and women who are serving. By any measure, the fleet of 272 ships in the Navy today is too small to address critical security challenges. Even with recent shipbuilding increases, the Navy will not achieve its current requirement of 308 ships until 2021, and there is no plan to meet the bipartisan National Defense Panel's unanimous recommendation for a fleet of between 323 and 346 ships. A shrinking fleet operating at a higher tempo has forced difficult tradeoffs. Extended deployments have taken a heavy toll on our sailors, ships, and aircraft, and the Navy is no longer able to provide constant carrier presence in the Middle East or the Western Pacific. In short, as threats grow, and the operational demands on our military increase, defense spending in constant dollars is decreasing. The President's defense budget is $17 billion less than what the Department of Defense planned for last year. In order to make up for that shortfall, the military was forced to cut things it needs right now: Army fighting vehicles, Air Force fighters, Navy ships, Marine Corps helicopters, and critical training and maintenance across the services. As a result, the military services' unfunded requirements total nearly $23 billion for the coming fiscal year alone. Then there is a massive and growing defense bill that we keep pretending does not exist. Over the next 5 years, the Department of Defense says it needs a minimum of $100 billion above the Budget Control Act caps on defense spending, add to that nearly $30 billion in base budget requirements that are currently hiding in the emergency account for contingency operations--or OCO. That is another $150 billion over 5 years. Put simply, according to our own Department of Defense and our own military leaders, our Nation needs an additional quarter of a trillion dollars over the current Budget Control Act caps over the next 5 years just to execute the current defense strategy--a strategy that I think many of us would agree is not doing enough to address the many global threats we face. My colleagues, we are fooling ourselves and we are misleading the American people about the true cost of defending our Nation. This makes no sense, and it is time to put a stop to this madness. That is what my amendment would begin to do. This amendment would increase defense spending by $18 billion. These additional resources would be used to restore military capabilities that were cut from the President's defense budget request; address unfunded requirements identified by military commanders, especially those aimed at restoring readiness in the military services; and support national security priorities consistently identified by military leaders and defense experts in testimony and briefings before the Senate Armed Services Committee. This amendment would increase the pay raise for our troops to 2.1 percent. The President's budget request sets pay raises at 1.6 percent, which would make this the fourth year in a row that pay raises for our troops were below inflation. Our troops deserve better, and if this amendment passes, a 2.1-percent pay raise would match the employment cost index and keep pace with private sector wage growth. This amendment prioritizes restoring military readiness. Over the past 5 years, the combination of expanding threats, high operational tempo, budget cuts, shrinking forces, and aging equipment have created a growing readiness crisis in our military. Indeed, of the $23 billion in unfunded requirements identified by the military services, almost $7 billion were directly related to readiness. The NDAA took a first step in addressing these requirements by redirecting about $2 billion in targeted savings toward improving readiness. My amendment would add an additional $2.2 billion to help alleviate the readiness crisis and mitigate the growing risk posed to the lives of our servicemembers. This amendment would stop misguided cuts to the size of our military that are based on outdated assumptions about the world. For example, cuts to the size of the Army were set in motion before the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the rise of ISIL. There is simply no strategic logic for continuing these cuts now and placing a dangerous burden on the backs of our soldiers. That is why my amendment cancels the planned reduction of 15,000 Active Army soldiers. It also restores end strength in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, as well as the National Guard and Reserve. The amendment also prevents cutting a 10th carrier air wing. Our military confronts an ongoing strike fighter shortfall, which is especially severe in the Navy, and a readiness crisis across aviation in the services. This amendment would begin reversing this dangerous trend by increasing aircraft procurement, including 14 F/A-18 Super Hornets and 11 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. The amendment also accelerates Navy shipbuilding to mitigate a looming funding crunch in the next decade. My amendment provides the balance of funding necessary to fully fund an additional Arleigh Burke- class destroyer. It also replaces funds for a third Littoral combat ship in the next fiscal year. This amendment supports the recommendations of the National Commission on the Future of the Army. In order to support combat aviation across the total Army, including the Guard and Reserve, the amendment includes funding for 36 additional UH-60 Black Hawks and 17 LUH-72 Lakotas, 5 CH-47 Chinooks, and 5 AH-64 Apache helicopters. The amendment also includes advanced procurement funding for 10 more Apaches. Despite the fact that our troops are still in harm's way in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is making steady gains and ISIL is now present on the battlefield, the President's budget request funds less than two-thirds of the current level of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Both Republicans and Democrats on the Armed Services Committee have recognized that U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan should be based on conditions on the ground. That is why this amendment provides full funding for the current level of 9,800 troops in Afghanistan to help our Afghan partners preserve the gains of the last 15 years and take the fight to terrorists who seek to destabilize the region and attack American interests. This amendment supports the European Reassurance Initiative by modernizing 14 M1 Abrams tanks and 14 M2 Bradley fighting vehicles for deployment to Eastern Europe to deter Russian aggression. The amendment also provides vital support for our allies and partners. My amendment provides $150 million in security assistance for the Ukrainian people to defend themselves against Vladimir Putin's aggression. It also provides an additional $320 million for Israeli missile defense programs, including cooperative programs with U.S. industry in order to protect one of our closest allies from a growing missile threat. In short, my amendment gives our troops the resources, training, and equipment they need and deserve to rise to the challenge of a more dangerous world. I would also add one important fact about this amendment. Whatever some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say, this amendment is completely compliant with last year's budget agreement, the Bipartisan Budget Act. That legislation set binding spending caps on defense and nondefense discretionary spending, but the BBA set what the Congressional Research Service called nonbinding target levels of funding for overseas contingency operations, or OCO. In other words, the BBA gave Congress the flexibility to increase OCO spending to meet current and future threats if it saw fit. There is no doubt that this additional spending is needed, and this amendment provides it in full compliance with last year's budget agreement. That said, I understand that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe we also need increases in nondefense spending. That is why the Senator from Rhode Island has offered a second-degree amendment that would add $18 billion in nondefense spending. This amendment has some laudable programs. I have long said that national security is not just the Department of Defense. I agree that we should provide additional funding for the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the Coast Guard. I would have added the CIA and some of our other intelligence agencies. But I do not believe there is any national security justification for adding billions in taxpayer dollars to a defense bill to pay for infrastructure, national parks, affordable housing programs, or agricultural research. While the Senate may not reach full agreement on the amendment by the Senator from Rhode Island, what I believe his amendment does show is that we all agree our military needs the additional resources my amendment provides. I do not know whether the amendment by the Senator from Rhode Island will succeed or fail, but if it does fail, my Democratic colleagues will be left to answer a simple question: Will you vote to give our military servicemembers the resources, training, and equipment they need and deserve? This vote will be that simple. Let's be clear what voting no would mean. Voting no would be a vote in favor of another year where the pay for our troops does not keep pace with inflation or private sector averages. Voting no would be a vote in favor of cutting more soldiers and marines at a time when the operational requirements for our Nation's land forces--from the Middle East and Africa to Europe and Asia--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 their own fleets to keep our Nation's pilots flying at far higher risk. Voting no would be a vote in favor of letting arbitrary budget caps set the timelines for our mission in Afghanistan instead of giving our troops and our Afghan partners a fighting chance at victory. In short, 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, an inadequate number of people, and unacceptable levels of risk to their missions and themselves. This is unfair, and it is wrong. It is wrong. For the sake of the men and women in our military who, as we speak, are putting their lives on the line 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. If we keep doing this, our military commanders have warned us that we risk sending young Americans into a conflict for which they are not prepared. I know the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize that the mistakes of the past 5 years have created this danger. Yet this is the reality our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are facing. It is our urgent and solemn task to confront it. I say to my colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike, it doesn't have to be this way. We don't have to tolerate this anymore. Let's stop allowing politics to divide us when we should be united in support of our military servicemembers. Let's begin charting a better course today, one that is worthy of the service and sacrifice of those who volunteer to put themselves in harm's way on our behalf. Let's adopt this amendment to give our servicemembers the support they need and deserve, and in so doing, let's do our duty. Mr. President, I know there are speakers on this amendment. I hope they will come to the floor to discuss these amendments so that we can set a time--hopefully this afternoon, if not tomorrow--on this amendment and the second-degree amendment by the Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to make a couple of comments about the progress of the legislation. As it just happened, the majority leader has filed cloture on the bill, which means that if 30 hours are consumed, then we would be here on Friday. I certainly hope that is not the case. We are negotiating several contentious issues which, if those negotiations are successful, I would anticipate a number of votes tomorrow morning. If we are unable to, then it is going to stretch out into the afternoon or even to the next day for final passage. I thank every Member who has been engaged in this process. Literally every Member has had an amendment or some involvement in this issue, and I think that is the healthiest thing about consideration of this bill, which, obviously I say with some bias, is the most important legislation that we take up, given that its responsibilities are to the men and women who are serving in our military in harm's way in a very dangerous world. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation, and hopefully we can reach some agreements tonight and tomorrow to expedite the process and get final passage. I note the presence of the Senator from Rhode Island, and I wonder if he has any comments.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator allow an interruption so that I can be recognized for a unanimous consent request, and he then will regain the floor?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oregon yield to me for a unanimous consent request without losing his right to the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Illinois and I have pretty well ventilated this issue, and once we get an agreement on votes, we could schedule a vote on it. I think we are very well aware of each other's positions. I have been talking about this issue for quite a period of time, as I watch our defense spending go down and our ``medical research'' go up. The argument of the Senator from Illinois is that men and women in the military are subject to all of these various health challenges, ranging from arthritis to vascular malfunctions, et cetera, because they are Americans, because they are human beings? Yes, we agree that members of the military are subject to all of these needs and earmarks for various illnesses that affect Americans. And by the way, traumatic brain injury causes a whole lot of things. So to say that epilepsy is the result of traumatic brain injury, there are all kinds of things that are the result of traumatic brain injury, and I strongly support funding--and so have many others--for research on traumatic brain injury. We know the terrible effects of that on our veterans. But there are, at least on this list, 50 different diseases and medical challenges, and connecting that all to defense takes a leap of the imagination and is, obviously, ridiculous. It is ridiculous. Here we have pancreatic cancer, Parkinson's, and all of these. Veterans are subject to those, yes, but it should not be in the Defense bill and it should not be taken out of defense money, particularly in this period of need. So if the Disabled American Veterans and every veteran organization is told they will not have funding for these programs, of course they are going to object to this provision in the bill. But if they are told the truth--and the truth is that they should get this money but it shouldn't be taken out of defense--most of these veterans would like to see it not taken out of defense; they would like to see it taken out of where it belongs. So, as I say, I am sure there is press conference after press conference rallying all of these people because they are being told they won't get the funding, and I can understand that, but that is not what this Senator wants and what America should have, which is the funding taken out of the accounts of which there is the responsibility of the various committees and subcommittees in Congress and in the Committee on Appropriations. That is what this is all about. So all I can say is that, as I predicted, the Senator from Illinois raises the issue of all of these things that will lose money. It is not that they will lose money. They will get the money if you do the right thing in the Committee on Appropriations, which is taking it out of the right accounts. To stretch the imagination to say that all of these are because of the men and women in the military is, at best, disingenuous.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be brief. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for her continued advocacy for these individuals who literally placed their lives on the line to assist us in combating the forces we have been struggling against for now these many years. These individuals deserve our thanks, but more importantly, they deserve the ability to come to the United States of America. According to our military leaders, their lives are in danger. They are the first target of the enemy because the enemy wants revenge against those who helped Americans, and there is no doubt in the minds of our military leaders that these individuals literally saved the lives of the men and women who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq on our behalf. I believe we should actually have a voice vote, and if necessary, have a vote if there is any controversy associated with this legislation. If America is going to seek the assistance of individuals who are willing to help us and then abandon them, then we have a very serious moral problem. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for her continued advocacy. I hope we can get this issue resolved as soon as possible. I yield the floor. Recognition of the Majority Leader

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me assure the Senator from Illinois that we were trying to get the language of a companion amendment to his amendment approved by that side of the aisle so that we can move forward with the amendment of the Senator from Illinois. Hopefully, we can get that language as soon as possible so that we can take up the formal debate on his amendment. In the meantime, in response to the comments of the Senator from Illinois, I have seen the latest polling data, and the approval of Congress is at about 14 percent--something like that. I have not met anyone lately from the 14 percent that approve of Congress. One of the major reasons is, of course, that they believe we have wasted their defense dollars by the billions and have wasted their taxpayer dollars by the billions. There is no greater example of that than what has happened with the so-called medical research. Every single one of these dollars probably goes to a worthy cause. Unfortunately, about 90 to 95 percent of that money has nothing to do with defense. Why would the Senator from Illinois and so many, overwhelmingly, take the money that is earmarked for the men and women who are serving when the effects of sequestration are causing our leadership in the military to say that we are on the ragged edge of our capability to defend the Nation and when the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Chief of Staff of the Army have said that we are putting the lives of Americans at greater risk because we don't have sufficient funding. Instead, we are taking $2 billion out of defense money and putting it into programs that have nothing to do with defense. Why is that? One would ask why would Congress take money from defense and put those monies into programs that have nothing to do with defense? It is called the Willie Sutton syndrome. That is when the famous bank robber was asked why he robbed banks. He said, ``That is where the money is.'' That is exactly what we are seeing here. We saw the Willie Sutton syndrome begin in 1992. In 1992, there was $25 million that was designated for medical research. That was $25 million in 1992. Today, we now are going to have almost--last year, the funding increased by 4,000 percent, from $25 million in 1992 to $1 billion last year. So if you ever have seen a graphic example of the Willie Sutton syndrome, it has to be this. Is there anyone who is opposed to breast cancer research? Is there anyone who is opposed to medical research for so many important challenges to the health of our Nation? Of course not. Of course not. But what the Senator from Illinois and the appropriators have done, year after year after year, is exactly this: OK. Here we go. There is $200 million. Here we are--reconstructive transplants, genetic studies of food allergies, cooperative epilepsy, chiropractic clinical trials, muscular dystrophy, peer-reviewed vision, peer-reviewed Alzheimer's, bone marrow failure, multiple sclerosis, and on and on. All of these are worthy causes. They have nothing to do with the defense of this Nation. That is the problem with this. I will probably lose this vote. The Senator from Illinois will probably succeed because there are so many special interests that are involved. But don't say this is for the defense of this Nation. What it is all about is finding money from the largest single appropriations bill to put into causes that, by all objective observers, should be taken out of the Health and Human Services account. Unfortunately, there is not enough money in the Health and Human Services account. So guess what. Take it out of defense. Meanwhile, we don't have enough troops trained, and we don't have enough to pay for their deployments. In case you missed it, there are stories about the squadron down in South Carolina--marines--where they are robbing parts from planes, where an Air Force squadron comes back with most of their aircraft not capable of flying, with only two of our brigade combat teams able to be in the first category of readiness--only two--because they don't have enough money for training and operations and maintenance. But we are going to take billions out, and we are going to give it to autism, lung cancer, ovarian cancer. All of those are worthy causes. Now we have lobbyists from all over the Nation coming up: Oh, they are going to take away money from ``fill in the blank.'' They are all angry. I am not trying to take the money from them. I am saying that the money should not come out of defense. I am saying that to defend this Nation, every single dollar is important to the men and women who are defending this Nation and fighting and dying as we speak. So I congratulate the Senator from Illinois as every year, just about, the money for medical research has gone up from an initial $25 million in 1992 to $1 billion this year, a 4,000-percent increase. Let me repeat. Spending on medical research at DOD--nearly 75 percent--has nothing to do with the military, and it has grown 4,000 percent since 1992. Now we can talk to all the lobbyists who come in for these various and very important medical research projects and say: We took care of you. I say to the Senator from Illinois: Take care of them from where it should come, which is not out of defending this Nation. In 2006, the late Senator from the State of Alaska, Ted Stevens, under whose leadership the original funding for breast cancer was added, said that the money would be ``going to medical research instead of the needs of the military.'' During the floor debate on the annual Defense appropriations bill, Senator Stevens had this to say: We could not have any more money going out of the Defense bill to take care of medical research when medical research is basically a function of the NIH. It is not our business. I confess. I am the one-- I am quoting Senator Stevens now. I confess, I am the one who made the first mistake years ago. I am the one who suggested we include some money for breast cancer research. It was languishing at the time. Since that time, it has grown to $750 million. In the last bill we had dealing with medical research, that had nothing to do with the Department of Defense. I want to emphasize again that I will support funding for every single one of these projects. I will support it when it comes out of the right account and not from the backs of the men and women who are serving in the U.S. military. It has to stop. It has to stop. So this year, the NDAA prohibits the Secretary of Defense and the service Secretaries from funding or conducting a medical research and development project unless they certify that the project would protect, enhance, or restore the health and safety of members of the Armed Forces. It requires the medical research projects be open to competition and comply with DOD cost accounting standards. It does not seem to me that that is an outrageous demand. I know my colleagues are going to come and say: Oh, we need this money because of ``fill in the blank,'' and this is vital to the health of America. I am all for that. But don't take it out of the ability of the young men and women to serve this Nation in uniform. That is what the amendment of the Senator from Illinois does. If this amendment passes, nearly $900 million in the defense budget will be used for medical research that is unrelated to defense and was not requested by the administration. One would think that if this is so vital, the administration would request it. They have not. They have not. If this amendment passes--and it will, I am confident--$900 million will be taken away from military servicemembers and their families. If this amendment passes, $900 million will not be used to provide a full 2.1-percent pay raise for our troops. It will not be used to halt dangerous reductions in the size of our Army and Marine Corps. It will not be used to buy equipment so that our airmen don't have to steal parts from airplanes in the boneyard in Arizona to keep the oldest, smallest, and least ready Air Force in our history in the air. As I said, many of the supporters of this amendment have opposed lifting arbitrary spending caps on defense unless more money is made available for nondefense needs. So, the Senator from Illinois--if I get this straight--wants to add nearly $1 billion in spending for medical research but is also opposed to increasing spending to a level of last year for defense spending. That is interesting. With these caps still in place, which we are going to try to fix later on in this bill, the Senator wants to take nearly $1 billion of limited defense funding to spend on nondefense needs. So I say to my colleague, the Senator from Illinois: It is not that he is wrong to support medical research. No one is attacking that. I can guarantee you, the first thing the Senator from Illinois is going to say: Well, we are going to take this money away from medical research. I am not. I am saying that it shouldn't come from the backs of the men and women who are serving this Nation. I would ask him not to say that because it is not the case. If he wants to add that money into the Health and Human Services account, I will support the amendment. I will support it. I will speak in favor of it. He has proposed the wrong amendment to support medical research. Instead of proposing to take away $900 million from our military servicemembers, he should be proposing a way to begin the long-overdue process of shifting the hundreds of millions of dollars of nonmilitary medical research spending out of the Department of Defense and into the appropriate civilian departments and agencies of our government. Let me be clear again. This debate is not about the value of this medical research or whether Congress should support it. Any person who has reached my age likely has some firsthand experience with the miracles of modern medicine and the gratitude for all who support it. I am sure every Senator understands the value of medical research to Americans suffering from these diseases, to the families and friends who care for them, and all those who know the pain and grief of losing a loved one. But this research does not belong in the Department of Defense. It belongs in civilian departments and agencies of our government. So I say to my colleagues, the NDAA focuses the Department's research efforts on medical research that will lead to lifesaving advancements in battlefield medicine and new therapies for recovery and rehabilitation of servicemembers wounded on the battlefield, both physically and mentally. This amendment would harm our national security by reducing the funding available for military-relevant medical research that helps protect service men and women on the battlefield and for military capabilities they desperately need to perform their missions. It would continue to put decisionmaking about medical research in the hands of lobbyists and politicians instead of medical experts where it belongs. So what is happening right now as we speak? Phones are ringing off the hook: We need this money for ``fill in the blank.'' We have to have this money. It is the end of Western civilization unless we get it. I support every single one of these programs. There is not a single one that I would not support funding for. But when you take it away from the men and women who are serving in the military for nonmilitary purposes, I say it is wrong. I will be glad to have the vote as soon as the other side clears our amendment process. But, again, I ask my colleagues: Don't distort this debate by saying we are trying to take away this medical research. What we are trying to say with the bill is that we are trying to do everything we can to take every defense dollar and make sure that we help the men and women who are serving in conflicts that are taking place throughout the world. We are not against the reason it was adopted by the Armed Services Committee--against this funding. We are against where it is coming from. So let's do something a little courageous for a change around here. Let's say: No, we will not take this money out of defense, but we will take it out of other accounts which are under the responsibility of the Senate and the Congress of the United States. That is all I am asking for. That is all. Obviously it probably will not happen. Every advocate for every one of those programs has now been fired up because they have been told that we are going to take away their money. We are not going to take away their money; we want their money coming from the right place. I would even support increases in some of this spending, but it is coming from the wrong place. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is the Willy Sutton syndrome, from $25 million in 1992 all the way up to here--all the way here--now $1 billion, a 4,000-percent increase. So I am sure that Senator after Senator will come to the floor: Oh, no. We can't take away this money from ``fill in the blank.'' This is terrible for us to do this. It is not terrible for us to do this. The right thing to do is not to deprive the men and women who are serving in the military of $1 billion that is badly needed for readiness and for operations to keep them safe. That is what this debate is all about. I expect to lose it. I congratulate the lobbyists ahead of time. I congratulate the Senator from Illinois ahead of time. But don't be surprised when the American people someday rise up against this process where we appropriate $1 billion for something under the name of national defense that has nothing to do with national defense. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think I have precedence.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I just want to say again that there are various accounts in the appropriations process that are directly related to the issues that have now been inserted in the Department of Defense authorization bill. That is what this is all about, and that is all it is all about. We can talk about all of the compelling needs and the terrible stories of people who have been afflicted by these various injuries and challenges to their health, but the fact is, it is coming from the wrong place, and that is what this is all about. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, we are working on trying to set up a series of a few amendments, including the Durbin amendment and others. Hopefully, we will have that resolved within half an hour or so, so we can then schedule votes for today. I know my colleagues are aware that tomorrow the first part of the day is for the joint meeting, with an address by the Prime Minister of India, so that even shortens our time. We want to try to get as many amendments done as we can today. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, with regard to the previous discussion, I want to point out to my colleagues, on this whole issue of a billion dollars that is being taken out of defense, the appropriate subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee and the authorizing committee is Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. Certainly, as I mentioned before--and taken out of the National Institutes of Health account, for which a lot of money was already being appropriated. So there is an appropriate vehicle for these expenditures of funds of nearly $1 billion, and it is not the Department of Defense. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I hope the Senator from Texas, who just made a moving commentary, would consider in the future standing together and voting for the Defense authorization bill rather than voting against it. We stood together on the committee with only three votes against the Defense authorization bill, and he voted against it last year as well. So I would look forward to working with the Senator from Texas and maybe getting him--instead of being one or two in the bipartisan effort of the committee--to vote for the Defense authorization bill. I might tell him also that with his agenda, as he described it, I would be much more agreeable to considering that agenda if he would consider voting for the defense of this Nation--which is that thick-- which we worked for months and months with hearings, meetings, and gatherings, and he decided to vote against the authorization bill. So I look forward to working with him, and perhaps next time he might consider voting for it rather than being 1 of 3 out of some 27 in the committee who voted for it in a bipartisan fashion, of which I am very proud. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas has the unique capability of finding a provision in a bill that thick to base his opposition on with a strong moral stand. The fact is that every single military leader in this country--both men and women, members of the military uniformed leadership of this country--believes it is simply fair, since we have opened up all aspects of the military to women in the military, that they would also be registering for Selective Service. I would also point out that every single member of the committee-- people such as Senator Ayotte, Senator Shaheen, Senator McCaskill, all of the female members of the committee--also finds it a matter of equality. Women I have spoken to in the military overwhelmingly believe that women are not only qualified but are on the same basis as their male counterparts. Every uniformed leader of the U.S. military seems to have a different opinion from the Senator from Texas, whose military background is not extensive. I believe it was indefinite detention last time, which obviously is an issue but, in my view, not a sufficient reason because it was not included. The bill last year did not address that issue, but because we didn't address the issue to the satisfaction of the Senator from Texas, then he voted against the bill. This year it is Selective Service. The vote within the committee was overwhelming. The opinion of men and women in the military--every one of our military leaders believes that. The Senator from Texas is entitled to his views, but to think that somehow that is sufficient reason for him to continue to vote against the bill--even though he does not respect the will of the majority--in my view, that is not sufficient reason to continue to oppose what is a bipartisan bill that was overwhelmingly voted for in committee and at the end of the day, in previous years, was voted for overwhelmingly in the Senate. I respect the view of the Senator from Texas. Too bad that view is not shared by our military leadership--the ones who have had the experience in combat with women in the military. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be in order to be offered: Durbin No. 4369 and Inhofe No. 4204. I further ask that the time until 4 p.m. be equally divided between the managers or their designees and that the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed, with no second-degree amendments to these amendments in order prior to the votes, and that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc: 4138, Peters; 4293, Baldwin; 4112, Gillibrand; 4177, Schumer; 4354, Leahy; 4079, Heitkamp; 4317, Hirono; 4031, Cardin; 4169, Coats; 4236, Portman; 4119, Roberts; 4095, Ernst; 4086, Murkowski; 4071, Hatch; 4247, Danes; and 4344, Sullivan.

Mr. McCAIN

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

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, while we are waiting for others to speak on the floor, I think it is important to take a moment to talk about the lead editorial in this morning's Washington Post, which describes the events transpiring in Syria, as we speak. The lead editorial says: Empty words, empty stomachs. Syrian children continue to face starvation as another Obama administration promise falls by the wayside. This is a devastating and true story. It's been nearly six months since the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution demanding an end to the bombing and shelling of civilian areas in Syria and calling for immediate humanitarian access to besieged areas. It's been four months since Secretary of State John F. Kerry described the sieges as a ``catastrophe'' of a dimension unseen since World War II and said that ``all parties of the conflict have a duty to facilitate humanitarian access to Syrians in desperate need.'' Those were the words of Secretary of State John Kerry back in February. The editorial continues: By Monday, there still had been no food deliveries to Darayya in the Damascus suburbs, the al-Waer district of Homs or several of the other 19 besieged areas, with a population of more than 500,000, identified by the United Nations. Nor had there been airdrops. None have been organized, and U.N. officials say none are likely in the coming days. Another deadline has been blown, another red line crossed--and children in the besieged towns are still starving. This is heartbreaking. It is heartbreaking. It is heartbreaking. Children in besieged towns are still starving. The editorial continues: Over the weekend, Russian and Syrian planes-- Our allies, the Russians-- heavily bombed civilian areas in rebel-held areas of Aleppo and Idlib. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said 500 civilians, including 105 children, had been killed in 45 consecutive days of bombing in Aleppo. The ``cessation of hostilities'' negotiated by Mr. Kerry in February, which was never fully observed by Russia and Syria, has been shredded. And the Obama administration's response? It is still waiting patiently for the regime of Bashar al-Assad to stop dropping barrel bombs from helicopters on hospitals and allow passage to aid convoys. It is still asking politely for Russia to stop bombing Western-backed rebel units and to compel the Assad regime to follow suit. ``We expect the regime to live up to its commitments,'' said a State Department statement Monday. ``We ask Russia to use its influence to end this inhumane policy.'' As for airdrops, ``that's a very complex question,'' said a spokeswoman. The promise of air delivery, it turns out, was entirely rhetorical. On May 26, two senior U.N. officials publicly warned that a U.N. air bridge could not be established without permission from the Assad regime--the same regime that was blocking food deliveries by land. They called on the United States and Russia to ``find a way'' to begin the operation. But neither the United States nor Britain, the original proponent of the airdrops, acted to make an operation possible. Instead, they issued appeals to the Russian government--the same government that is systematically bombing civilian neighborhoods of Aleppo and Idlib. The British ambassador to the United Nations hinted on Friday that if the Assad regime kept preventing land and air raid deliveries, his government ``will consider other actions.'' The French ambassador to the United Nations said ``the Syrian regime is continuing to systematically starve hundreds of thousands of civilians. These are war crimes . . . There is a strong momentum here in the Security Council . . . to say `enough is enough.' '' Strong words. Those are a Kerry specialty, too. People in the besieged towns are ``eating leaves and grass or animals of one kind or another that they can manage to capture,'' Mr. Kerry declared. Humanitarian access, he said, ``has to happen not a week from now . . . it ought to happen in the first days.'' That was on February 2. On February 2, the Secretary of State declared humanitarian access where 500,000 people were starving. On February 2, he said that the humanitarian access ``has to happen not a week from now . . . it ought to happen in the first days.'' It is shocking and disgraceful. We should all be ashamed. By the way, the people who we are training to fight against ISIS are prohibited from fighting against the guy who is barrel-bombing and killing these thousands of men, women, and children--Bashar al-Assad. It is insanity. History will judge this administration and its actions not only with anger but with embarrassment. This is a shameful chapter in American history. I note the presence of the Senator from Illinois. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield? I just wonder if there is anyone left in America whom he has not thanked.