John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor once again to discuss the threats facing our country, the challenges confronting the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. I feel compelled to remind my colleagues about what is at stake because of our failure right here to provide them the resources and equipment they need and deserve, placing their lives at greater risk. That is not my opinion; it is the opinion of the uniformed leaders of our country who have stated time after time that because of our sequestration and our mindless meat ax, we are putting the lives of the men and women who are serving our Nation in uniform at greater risk. Don't we have an obligation to try to stop that? Obviously, there is not a majority here in the Senate who believes we should, to our everlasting shame. Unless we change course, we will only continue that failure. We are about to vote on yet another Omnibus appropriations bill. It is well over 1,000 pages. Look here; this is what we are about to vote on without a single amendment--without a single amendment. Is there any Member of the U.S. Senate who has read this? Is there any Member who has read this bill of over $1 trillion that we are about to vote on? Many of us are going to be compelled to vote for it because we don't want to shut down the government again. The American people don't want the government to shut down, no matter what some colleagues of mine say. But here it is. I challenge any of my colleagues to come to the floor and tell me they have read this bill. Is it any wonder that the American people are fed up with this way of doing business? There are 1,000 pages--1,000 pages. That is what we are going to vote on in a relatively short period of time--haven't read it--no amendments. I am sure there may be some provisions in this 1,000-page document that Members would like to modify, like to add to. But what business are we doing? What is the world's greatest deliberative body doing here in a couple hours? We are going to vote yes or no on a 1,000-page document. Shame on us. Shame on us. Not a single appropriations bill--we have an Appropriations Committee. They have their subcommittees. My friend and colleague from Vermont is here and wants to talk about it. They churn out individual bills. I believe there are 13 of them, one of them being Defense, by the way. But all of that is without amendment, without debate on the floor of the world's greatest deliberative body. Yet we are going to go ahead and vote yes or no. Many of us are going to vote yes because we don't want to shut down the U.S. Government. We don't want to deprive our citizens of the goods, services, and provisions that a government is supposed to provide people. I don't want to shut down the Grand Canyon again, my friends. I don't want to deprive people from all over the world the ability to see the Grand Canyon. So what do we do? CRAs. I am all in favor of repealing regulations that are onerous and bad for America and small businesses and large. Is that a rationale for what we are about to do? I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: You blocked many of these bills that we wanted to bring to the floor. You blocked them. Why? For what purpose? Of course, on this side of the aisle, we have agreed to do something like that. So I just say to my colleagues: You should not be curious when you see the approval ratings of the Congress of the United States in the teens. Again, as I said, we will be blamed for putting our men and women in uniform at greater risk. That is not John McCain's view; that happens to be the opinion of our uniformed service Chiefs who are telling us that when we are not funding the military, we are putting the lives of the men and women serving at risk. We passed the Budget Control Act 6 years ago as an attempt to address our spending problem. This legislation led to a $443 billion cut to defense. What has also happened? Deficits came down for a while, and we are on track to return to $1 trillion deficits again in a matter of years. The national debt is set at $20 trillion and has grown and will continue to grow. We slashed our military, friends. We slashed it. Yeah, great job, we slashed the spending on the military. In fact, if you look, you will see the only portion where there has been a reduction in spending is where? Defense. When you look at the past several years since sequestration, do you think the world has gotten safer? Do you think the men and women who are serving are better protected, better equipped? We have 60 percent of our F-18s not flying. Why? No parts. We have two submarines tied up at the pier for a year because they cannot leave the pier. The Air Force is 1,000 pilots short. What have we done? We have cut defense spending by 4 percent. Meanwhile, the interest on the debt has increased by 7 percent; nondefense, 19 percent; and the elephant in the room, the third rail that none of us want to touch is mandatory spending; that is Social Security and Medicare, primarily. What have we done? We have shortchanged the men and women who are serving in the military, trying to defend this Nation while nondefense spending has gone up by 19 percent. So the next time I hear one of my colleagues say: Well, we should continue to cut defense spending because of the debt, we have already done that. We have already shortchanged the men and women who are defending this Nation. Over the past 10 years, as I mentioned, mandatory spending has grown by 56 percent, and defense has been cut by 4 percent. The death spiral is occurring. We are in budget cuts with a high operational tempo, and the military is now in a vicious cycle. The death spiral works like this. This is the death spiral, OK? Constant and frequent deployments increase costs. To send our men and women overseas into harm's way increases costs. The more you fly the plane, the more it costs to maintain the plane. The more you deploy a soldier, the more you have to pay him or her to stay in the military. When budget top lines are determined by politics and not requirements, the Department of Defense has to make tradeoffs. For example, the military may forgo buying military equipment to keep up with wartime costs, but this exacerbates the problem. Our equipment gets older as it is used more and the cost of maintaining aging equipment skyrockets. Here is the death spiral, why the state of our military is what it is today. Three--count them--three of our Army brigades are at the highest level of readiness. Four of 64 Air Force squadrons are ready to fight tonight; that is four out of 64. Less than half of the Marine and Navy planes are ready for combat. The Air Force has a pilot shortfall of 1,500--1,000 of which are fighter pilots. The Navy has a maintenance backlog of 5.3 million days. The ship maintenance backlogs are so bad that some ships are like the submarine USS Boise, which is tied up in port and isn't qualified to dive and recently missed a deployment. Look at this graphic. These are the aircraft--all of them that are fully mission capable. These are the Army units that are ready to fight tonight. This is the U.S. Air Force, and these depict the airplanes ready to fight; Marine Corps aircraft, the same way. So here we are with this situation, and what are we doing? We aren't really addressing the issue because we are going to be faced in the next year or so with the same budget problem of sequestration. While this is happening, our enemies aren't sitting still. Our adversaries are not waiting for this body to wake up to do its job and act. While we have forced our military to make tradeoffs between supporting immediate operational requirements and future modernization, China, Russia, and other adversaries have been singularly focused on developing military capabilities to target U.S. forces and take away our unique military advantages. Our military has multiple missions. Our adversaries have one mission, and that is to undermine U.S. military superiority. I regret to inform my colleagues that they are succeeding much more than we anticipated. The fact is, the U.S. military advantage is eroding. National Security Adviser GEN H.R. McMaster summed it up best when he testified that the U.S. Army is outgunned and outranged. The reality is not much different across the military services. The President understands it. Rebuilding the military has been a major priority for this administration, but we have to face the simple fact that the military buildup proposed by this President is illegal because the Budget Control Act forbids it. Over the next 4 years, the Budget Control Act's caps on defense spending would leave President Trump $216 billion short. Even President Obama's budget was $113 billion above the BCA caps, and that budget barely slowed the deterioration of military readiness and capabilities. I regret to say, Chairman Thornberry, the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and I fare even worse against the BCA. We believe that rebuilding our military will require a defense budget of $640 billion in fiscal year 2018. Sustaining that level of funding over the remaining years with the Budget Control Act would require an additional $433 billion. Give our men and women in uniform a budget that will allow them to rise to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Congress must change the Budget Control Act, and the only way to do that is with a bipartisan budget agreement. As we stand here, there is no serious conversation that I am aware of in this body or anywhere else in Washington about what the agreement would look like or what it would achieve. The next 4 years can't be like the last 4 years. We must find a way to provide the military with the resources they need and deserve to perform the missions we assign them. We must provide them with the timely authorization of appropriations bills. We must provide them with something they have not had for years--certainty--so they can properly plan and efficiently use taxpayers' dollars to defend the Nation. What are we looking at right now? We are going to pass this thing. It will pass. Then, in September-- how many months is that now? It is about 5 months from now--we are going to be bumping up against the same ceiling and the threat of shutting down the government. Are we going to wait until the beginning of September before we start to address this or not? Is that the kind of fiscal cowardice we are going to perform? We are going to see this movie again and again and again and again unless we repeal the Budget Control Act and start providing for the men and women who are serving this Nation and the challenges we are facing, which any military expert will tell you are the greatest they have been in 70 years. We have to stop this. We will paper over our failures with continuing resolutions. We will cut piecemeal deals in the midnight hour that fail to fix the serious challenges this country faces. We will accept these outcomes because they are better than yearlong continuing resolutions or shutdowns. We will clear the pitifully low bar of success we have set for ourselves, and all the while, challenges we will have been charged to address will only get worse. We have to break this cycle. After several years of political gridlock, we know a bipartisan budget deal will be necessary to pass appropriations bills. Let's try a novel idea. Why don't we work on the deal now? Why don't we sit down together, with all of us recognizing the challenges to our national security, and fix this problem instead of kicking the can down the road? My friends, if we do not, I guarantee you we will be doing this same thing again in September. What is that? We will be looking at another 1,000-page bill--1,000 pages that none of us has read. Oh, I take it back. There may be four or five Senators who know what is in it. Maybe 4, maybe 5, maybe as many as 8 out of 100 will know about it. If we do not stop this, this is exactly the movie we are going to see come September--not acceptable. Don't we owe the men and women who are serving in uniform in harm's way today--several of whom have just been killed in the last few days-- more than what we are giving them? Don't we owe them the best equipment and the best training we can possibly provide them with rather than their being dictated to by a meat-ax called sequestration? Don't we? Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today deeply saddened by the passing of my dear friend and fellow POW, Lt. Col. Leo Thorsness. One of the greatest honors of my life was serving with Leo, a man whose service exemplified selfless duty and devotion to others. Leo earned the Medal of Honor for his heroism in a daring combat mission in North Vietnam in 1967 when he flew directly into hostile territory on dangerously low fuel in an attempt to rescue his comrades who had been downed in an attack. Just 2 weeks after that courageous mission, Leo's aircraft was shot down, and he was taken captive by North Vietnamese soldiers. Leo would spend the next 6 years imprisoned, including a full year in solitary confinement, and endure unspeakable pain and suffering because of his steadfast adherence to our code of conduct. However, Leo never let this experience break his spirit and inspired the rest of us with his patriotism, perseverance, and hope that we would someday be free. After returning home, Leo continued to live a selfless life of service, as a volunteer, State senator, and public speaker, with a simple message: ``Do what's right--help others.'' I am forever grateful for Leo's generosity, friendship, and example and, along with Cindy, send my heartfelt condolences to Leo's wife, Gaylee, and their entire family as we bid farewell to a genuine American hero.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise today in support of the nomination and the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. I do so with mixed emotions because I believe that the actions taken in order to achieve this position will have lasting effects that are unfortunate on this body as far as comity is concerned, but also the confirmation of future judges of the Supreme Court by 51 votes. Rather than go back through the history of what former Majority Leader Reid did in regard to judges and what we are doing now, I am very concerned about the future which will then, with only a 51-vote majority required, lead to polarization of the nominees as far as their philosophies are concerned when the majority does not have to consider the concerns and the votes of the minority. With my focus on Democrats' unprecedented filibuster of Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Senate's regrettable action yesterday to invoke the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominees, I have been remiss in not taking the time to describe for the American people why I support strongly and without qualification confirming Judge Gorsuch to serve as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Why I do so is very simple. Rarely has this body seen a nominee to the Supreme Court so well qualified, so skilled, with such command of constitutional jurisprudence, with such an established record of independence and such judicial temperament as Judge Gorsuch. It is, in fact, exactly for these very reasons that this very body unanimously voted in 2006 to confirm this very judge--this same judge--to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Yet, now, the other side would have the American people believe that this very same judge lies firmly outside the mainstream and is, therefore, otherwise unacceptable to serve in the Nation's highest Court. Even by the standards of this body, this sophistry is breathtaking. Let me take a moment to join the chorus of support of my colleagues and recount why Judge Gorsuch is so deserving of this body's support for confirmation to the Supreme Court. First and foremost, Judge Gorsuch is a world-class judge. On the U.S. Appellate Court for the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch has maintained the lowest rating of other judges dissenting from his opinion. Indeed, according to the Congressional Research Service, only 1.5 percent of Judge Gorsuch's majority opinions were accompanied by a dissent--the lowest of any judge in that study. Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court has never overruled any of Judge Gorsuch's opinions--not a single one. Furthermore, in the more than 2,700 cases Judge Gorsuch participated in, 97 percent of them were decided unanimously, and Judge Gorsuch was in the majority 99 percent of the time. These are facts. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled an opinion where Judge Gorsuch sat on a panel only one time. While serving on that court, Judge Gorsuch built an exceptional reputation for his fair-minded, articulate, and sharp intellect. Stanford Professor Michael McConnell, who served with Judge Gorsuch on the Tenth Circuit, characterized Judge Gorsuch as ``an independent thinker, never a party liner'' and ``one of the best writers in the judiciary today. . . . [H]e sets forth all positions fairly and gives real reasons--not just conclusions--for siding with one and rejecting the other.'' Second, Judge Gorsuch has one of the most impressive professional and academic backgrounds this body has ever seen. He graduated from Columbia cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa and cum laude from Harvard Law School. He also obtained a doctorate degree in philosophy from Oxford University and served as a Truman and Marshall Scholar. Additionally, he served for U.S. Circuit Court Judge David Sentelle, Supreme Court Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy. Judge Gorsuch also served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice before serving as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. For all of these achievements, Judge Gorsuch has earned the highest possible rating from a group Minority Leader Schumer calls the ``gold standard'' for evaluating judicial nominations. Finally, Judge Gorsuch has established himself as an exceptional nominee. Indeed, Judge Gorsuch's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee was extraordinary. In the course of the three rounds of questioning by that committee, each Member had the opportunity to quiz Judge Gorsuch for over an hour each on just about every aspect of constitutional law. In answering about 1,200 questions from the panel, he demonstrated almost peerless mastery over that field. Furthermore, Judge Gorsuch's nomination, with the help of my friend and former member of this body Kelly Ayotte, was exemplary in its transparency. Before his hearing, and in response to the Judiciary Committee's requests, Judge Gorsuch provided over 70 pages of written answers about his personal record and over 75,000 pages of documents, including speeches, case briefs, and opinions--which, by the way, makes you wonder why he wanted the job. Anyway, White House archives and the Department of Justice similarly produced over 180,000 pages of documents related to Judge Gorsuch's time at the DOJ. The Department of Justice, moreover, provided access to reams of documents that would ordinarily be subject to claims of privilege. However, in the spirit of cooperation and in the hope of truly bipartisan consideration, the Department of Justice provided my friends on the other side access to these records anyway. Additionally, in response to almost 300 separate questions posed by Democrats on the committee, Judge Gorsuch provided another 70 pages of written responses, and did so within a week of receiving them, to give my friends sufficient time to review the answers before the committee voted for consideration of his nomination. Despite all of that I just said--despite everything that I just said, my friends on the other side would have the American people believe that Judge Gorsuch lies firmly out of the mainstream and hopelessly obfuscated his judicial philosophy. My friends, when you do that with an individual that qualified, you lose credibility. For all of the reasons I just went through, that is simply untrue. Moreover, when many of my friends on the other side had the opportunity to question Judge Gorsuch over the 20 hours they had with him during his confirmation hearing, they contented themselves with asking Judge Gorsuch for his personal opinions on issues that could come before him if he is confirmed to the Court. In addition, they passed hypotheticals they knew he, for ethical and prudential reasons, could not possibly be expected to answer. Here is some straight talk. The real reason most of my friends on the other side opposed Judge Gorsuch's confirmation is that President Trump nominated him--because their base of support and related special interests on the far left have been upset about President Trump's election in November. The fact is that if most of my friends on the other side of the aisle are opposed to this nominee, they will oppose any nominee put forward by this President, or any Republican President, for that matter. The record is clear. Judge Gorsuch's qualifications, knowledge, skill, judicial temperament, and record of independence are truly exceptional. For these reasons, he has earned my strong and unqualified support for his confirmation to the Nation's highest Court. Could I just make one additional comment, and I know my friend from Utah is waiting. When President Obama and Presidents before him were elected from both parties, it was pretty much the standard procedure here in the U.S. Senate to give the incoming President the benefit of the doubt. In other words, the American people, by electing a President of the United States, had also basically endorsed his responsibility and his right to nominate judges to the courts. That is just sort of a given, because the American people spoke in their selection of the President of the United States, taking into consideration those responsibilities the President would have. So, therefore, for those reasons, I voted for most of President Obama's nominees, as I did most of President Clinton's nominees. Now we are in a position where we are so polarized that even a man of the qualifications of Judge Gorsuch is now opposed by our friends on the other side of the aisle. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, and I say to my friends on this side of the aisle: That is not the way the Senate was designed to work. The Senate was designed for us to communicate, for us to work together, for us to understand the results and repercussions of a free and fair election. It is about time we sat down together and tried to do some things for the American people in a bipartisan fashion. This near-hysterical opposition that I see from my friends on the other side of the aisle does not bode well for what we know we need to do. Madam President, I recognize the presence of the distinguished Senator from Utah, and I say ``distinguished'' because both he and I are of advanced age. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before I get into my remarks about the impending action of the Senate with regard to the so-called nuclear option, I would just point out that the attacks yesterday on innocent men, women, and children should not have come as a surprise. It was in 2013 that the then-Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and the head of the CIA recommended to the President that we arm the Free Syrian Army and bring Bashar Assad's barbarity to a halt. The President of the United States rejected that. Bashar Assad used chemical weapons, and the President called me and Senator Graham over to the White House and said: If they cross the redline, I am going to act. We are going to degrade Bashar Assad and upgrade the Free Syrian Army and have regime change. Then, of course, he backed down. You know, there is one thing worse than doing nothing: It is saying you are going to do something and then not doing it. That sent a signal everywhere in the world, not just Syria. The fact is, we knew it would happen again. So we have seen this movie before. Unless we act, we are going to see it again. I am encouraged, frankly, that General Mattis, General McMaster, and the President of the United States have said that this act of incredible barbarity and cruelty will not go unresponded to. But I can assure my colleagues this: If we don't respond to this, then there will be more use of these chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction, and there will be more innocent people who will die. Eight years of Obama's failure is what led to the events that just took place that horrified all of us. That requires us to stand up to this barbarity, help the Free Syrian Army, establish safe zones, and make sure that Bashar Assad, propped up by the Russians and the Iranians and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah, is no longer able to perpetrate these war crimes on innocent men, women, and children. Mr. President, it is also with some sorrow that I regret having to come to the floor to speak once again on the issue of eliminating the 60-vote threshold on judicial nominations, specifically a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is particularly troubling to do so because the nominee in question, Judge Neil Gorsuch, has impeccable legal credentials and a strong reputation as a fair- and sharp-minded lawyer and jurist. The American Bar Association and many others of all political stripes agree that his distinguished career as a lawyer and a jurist makes him well qualified for the position of Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Regrettably, very regrettably, my colleagues in the minority have decided to filibuster the nomination of this good, decent, highly qualified man. Numerous times over the years, the Senate has come to a standstill over nominees, whether they were judicial or executive branch. That gridlock has inevitably led to threats from the majority--whichever party was in the majority--to use the ``nuclear option,'' basically changing the rules of the Senate of 200 years to strip the minority party of their right to filibuster certain nominees. I have been privileged several times to be a part of a group of Senators who were able to come together and negotiate agreements to end the gridlock surrounding nominees, avert the nuclear option, and allow the Senate to move forward with our work on behalf of the American people. My work in these groups--often referred to as gangs--has won me both praise and condemnation and has often put me at odds with some in my own party. In 2005, I joined 13 of my colleagues in an agreement that allowed for votes on three of President Bush's judicial nominees who were being filibustered by the Democrats, who were in the minority at the time. Part of that agreement addressed future nominees. It stated: Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist. In other words, if that nominee is so far out of the mainstream that it is extraordinary, only then would they seek to block the nomination and filibuster. I have had conversations with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in an attempt to once again come up with a way forward and avoid both a filibuster of Judge Gorsuch and the nuclear option. Sadly, I learned on Monday that those efforts had failed and that the Democrats had secured the necessary votes to successfully filibuster the highly qualified Supreme Court nominee for the first time in our history. In response, the majority leader has indicated that he will move to change the Senate rules and eliminate the ability of the minority to do so. We are in a terrible place. My colleagues should understand that this is a historic moment if we move forward with it. In 2013, then-Majority Leader Harry Reid changed the Senate rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold on most judicial and executive branch nominees. Those in my party, including me, were enraged--rightly so. We warned that the Democrats would not be in control of the Senate or the White House forever and that they would come to regret their actions. We were right. Their actions came back to haunt them. I believe our actions will haunt us as well. In an op-ed on November 27, 2012, Senator McConnell, knowing of the Democrats' plans to change the Senate rules in their favor, wrote this: A serious threat has been quietly gathering against one of the most cherished safeguards of liberty in our government-- the right of a political minority to have a voice. Until now, this has always been the defining characteristic of the Senate. That's why all Senators have traditionally defended the Senate as an institution, because they knew that the Senate was the last legislative check for political minorities and small states against the kind of raw exercise of power large states and majority parties have always been tempted to wield. The threat I'm referring to is the effort by some Democrats, most of whom have never served a day in the minority, to force a change in the Senate rules. How soon we forget. In fact, Chairman Grassley exactly predicted what is about to happen. In November 2013, he said: Not too many years ago, my colleagues on the other side described their fight to preserve the filibuster with great pride. Today the other side is willing to forever change the Senate because the Republicans have the audacity to hold them, the majority party of today, to their own standard. The silver lining is that there will come a day when roles are reversed. When that happens, our side will likely nominate and confirm lower court and Supreme Court nominees with 51 votes regardless of whether the Democrats actually buy into this fanciful notion that they can demolish the filibuster on lower court nominees and still preserve it for the Supreme Court. Senator Alexander, on November 21, 2013, when threatened with the nuclear option by the Democrats, said: This action today creates a perpetual opportunity for the tyranny of the majority because it permits a majority in this body to do whatever it wants to do any time it wants to do it. Senator Alexander went on to say: In my view, this is the most important and most dangerous restructuring of Senate rules since Thomas Jefferson wrote them at the beginning of our country. On November 21, 2013, Senator Shelby said: Democrats won't be in power in perpetuity. This is a mistake--a big one for the long run. Maybe not for the short run. Short-term gains, but I think it changes the Senate tremendously in a bad way. The same day, on the same issue, Senator Thune said: I think Democrats are playing with fire. This is very dangerous in terms of what it means for the Senate. What goes around comes around. And someday, they're going to be in the minority. Senator Burr said on that same day: The American people know what they get when the minority party is stripped of its filibuster rights: they get unchecked power by the executive branch. He went on to say: If sweeping legislation and lifetime appointments cannot muster 60 votes in the United States Senate, then it probably is not a good idea to force either on the American people. My own colleagues on this side of the aisle need to remember our own words and heed our own warnings. We will not control this body forever. We will not hold the White House in perpetuity. What we are poised to do at the end of this week will have tremendous consequences, and I fear that someday, we will regret what we are about to do. In fact, I am confident we will. Having said that, it is hard for me to keep a straight face when I hear the current righteous indignation coming from the other side. After reading the comments some of my Democrat friends made in 2013, it is difficult to have much sympathy for where they find themselves today. Senator Merkley, who was perhaps the biggest proponent of changing the rules at that time, said this: Without the nuclear option, Republicans are going to disable the executive branch. Ending the abusive filibuster on nominations is a big step toward restoring the functionality of the Senate, and that matters for all of us. This is a terrific vote for the U.S. Senate. Senator Udall said: I'm just so encouraged now that we're going to be able to-- without filibusters--put people on the courts in an orderly way. Senator Warren said on November 13, 2013: We need to call out these filibusters for what they are: Naked attempts to nullify the results of the last election. If Republicans continue to filibuster these highly qualified nominees for no reason other than to nullify the President's constitutional authority, then Senators not only have the right to change the filibuster, Senators have a duty to change the filibuster rules. We cannot turn our backs on the Constitution. We cannot abdicate our oath of office. Senator Sanders on May 14, 2013, said: If we bring this nomination to the floor and there is a request for 60 votes, which we're not going to get, I think it is time for the Democratic leadership to do what the American people want, and that is to have a majority rule in the United States Senate. I did not make up those last quotes. Those are actual quotes. This isn't fake news. Elections have consequences, my friends. Elections have consequences. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle keep this in mind: Now that we are entering into an era where a simple majority decides all judicial nominations, we will see more and more nominees from the extremes of both the left and the right. I do not see how that will ensure a fair and impartial judiciary. In fact, I think the opposite will be true, and Americans will no longer be confident of equal protection under the law. When then-Majority Leader Reid changed the Senate rules in 2013, there was no one more critical of his actions than the Senator who stands before you now. I fought hard to convince my colleagues of the damage those changes would do to this body. I did so because I love the Senate. I revere this institution and the place it holds in our system of government. It is imperative that we have a functioning Senate where the rights of the minority are protected, regardless of which party is in power at the time. While what happened in 2013 was infuriating to our side, it was also heartbreaking. It was heartbreaking because it seemed to me that the uniqueness of the Senate had been irreparably damaged and, along with it, any hope of restoring meaningful bipartisanship. The unprecedented nature of the Democrats' filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee has left me in the difficult position of having to decide whether to support finishing what Harry Reid and the Democrats started in 2013 and eliminate the 60-vote threshold on Supreme Court nominations. I find myself torn between protecting the traditions and practices of the Senate and the importance of having a full complement of Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. I am left with no choice. I will vote to change the rules and allow Judge Gorsuch to be confirmed by a simple majority. I will do so with great reluctance, not because I have any doubts that Judge Gorsuch will be an excellent Justice but because of the further--and perhaps irreparable--damage that it will do to the Senate. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from Kansas for all the hard work he has done, and the Senator from Montana. On the rare occasion I come to praise him, I would like to give him my deep and heartfelt appreciation for his work in a bipartisan fashion on this issue. I mean that with all sincerity. I also thank our distinguished chairman, Senator Isakson. I also think I share with my colleagues an appreciation for Dr. Shulkin, the new Secretary of the Veterans' Administration, who has been an active and helpful participant in this effort. Most everything has been said except that I would like to remind my colleagues that we now have--since the enactment in 2014, over 7 million appointments have been made using the Choice Program. Now, over 30,000 appointments are successfully made each week under the Choice Program. The programs are set to expire in a few months, and, as pointed out by my colleagues, the VA has already begun to limit care for pregnant mothers, as well as cancer patients, because their treatment would extend beyond August. Soon all veterans will be kicked off the Choice Program. I would just like to point out to my colleagues, if I could, that this crisis started in Phoenix, AZ, where 15,000 veterans were put on a wait list and over 40 veterans died while awaiting care. That is not acceptable in this Nation. I believe the Choice Program is a major step forward. The truth is, the VA has a lot more to do to provide for the care we have obligated this Nation to on behalf of those who have fought and sacrificed for our Nation. The Choice Card has made a major step forward. I hope we can consider removing any geographic or other limitations associated with it. But what the Senators from Kansas and Montana have done today is to make sure this program continues and why it is important to pass it today--not one dollar Congress authorized to care for veterans under the Choice Program should go unused. Let me mention what we have done. There are 7 million additional appointments for veterans in their communities, and over 1.5 million veterans have benefited from using the Choice Card that they would not have had otherwise. Some 350,000 more doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants are available to treat veterans. There are 235,000 appointments per month through Veterans Choice--more than 10,000 per workday. The Veterans Choice Program more than doubles the number of medical providers nationwide that treat veterans. In Arizona, 11,700 medical providers in veterans communities have treated over 100,000 disabled veterans. The Veterans Choice Card is being used at 700 hospitals and nearly 10,000 clinics nationwide. The Western Region is paying more than 90 percent of Veterans Choice doctors in less than 30 days and answering 900,000 phone calls per month, with an average time to answer of under 25 seconds. Over 3,000 veterans received hepatitis C treatments due to Veterans Choice funding. There are still kinks in the operation. There are still bottlenecks. There are still times when veterans' payments, particularly, have not been done in a timely fashion, as the Senator from Kansas mentioned. Hopefully, that will change now. As with any program, it had its difficulties in its beginning. But I want to tell my colleagues that we should make the Choice Card available for any veteran, no matter where they happen to reside. It should be, I believe, the basis of our next effort. But in the meantime, I want to thank again the Senator from Kansas for his hard work. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to offer my congratulations to Gen. Herbert ``Hawk'' Carlisle on the occasion of his retirement from the U.S. Air Force this month. Over four decades of distinguished service, from the Air Force Academy to the Pentagon to leadership in two four-star commands, General Carlisle has been instrumental in advancing the capabilities of our Air Force and improving the lives of its most precious asset--its airmen. As commander of Pacific Air Forces, General Carlisle was responsible for Air Force activities spanning more than half the globe, leading 45,000 airmen across the Pacific from Hawaii and Alaska to Japan and Korea. He provided critical strategic leadership as the United States worked to strengthen its commitment to peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific Region at time of increasing challenge. Under General Carlisle's leadership, the airmen of Air Combat Command pressed the fight against America's adversaries, delivering devastating effects against violent extremism in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. General Carlisle's determination and hard work were essential to bringing the Air Force's F-35A Joint Strike Fighter to initial operational capability--no small achievement for a long-delayed and troubled program, yet one that is so critical for sustaining America's military dominance into the future. I had the pleasure of getting to know General Carlisle when he served as director of the Air Force's Legislative Liaison Office. It was then that I came to appreciate his honesty and candor. Those of us tasked with the oversight of the Department of Defense and our Armed Forces rely upon the candor of our senior military leaders. In my interactions with General Carlisle in various positions through the years, whether in private meetings or in public testimony, I could always count on General Carlisle to provide his best military advice on critical defense matters affecting the Air Force and our Nation. I hope his successors will follow in that same spirit of transparency and collaboration. I also hope that my colleagues and I will continue to benefit from General Carlisle's wise counsel. Once again, I want to express my sincere thanks to General Carlisle for his distinguished service to our country and congratulate him on a well-earned retirement. I wish General Carlisle and his family all the best as he embarks on the next chapter of his life.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I take the floor to urge an ``aye'' vote on invoking cloture on the issue of Montenegro's admittance into NATO. I would point out that 25 of the 28 nations in NATO have already voted in favor of Montenegro's accession into NATO. Only the United States, Spain, and the Netherlands have yet to weigh in. I would like to point out that Montenegro's admittance into NATO is a critical test of the alliances's open-door policy. I don't ask my colleagues to take my word for it. I would just like to point out that our Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Curtis Scaparrotti, last week declared that Montenegro's accession into NATO is ``absolutely critical,'' that they have had this desire. They have met the map, and they understand NATO'S outreach and ability to bring in those who want to determine their own means of government and become part of NATO. If we were to lose this, it would be a setback to many of the other nations and peoples, particularly in Eastern Europe, who were looking forward to and have their eyes on the West and becoming part of NATO. I would point out to my colleagues that the Russians attach some importance to Montenegro because they tried a coup to overthrow the government. The Russians tried a coup to overthrow the government of this small, beautiful, and strategically important nation. I would just point out that our Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, wrote a letter urging Montenegro's membership to be ratified, saying that it was ``strongly in the interests of the United States.'' In his letter he strongly emphasized that Montenegro's accession to NATO would support greater integration, democratic reform, trade, and security and stability in the entire Balkans region. I won't take too much time in the Senate except to say that I think this is more than an accession or non-accession of a small 750,000- person nation. It is a test in this contest that we are now engaged in with Vladimir Putin, who has committed to extending the reach and influence of the Russian Government and Russian influence to the point where he attempted a coup to overthrow the freely elected government of Montenegro. That coup failed, but I can assure my colleagues that if we turn down Montenegro, it will not remain the democracy that it is today. General Breedlove, who is our former commander in Europe said: Montenegro is a very strategic place. Can you imagine A2/AD Bubbles in Montenegro? I urge my colleagues for a resounding ``aye'' vote in bringing cloture to an end and bringing Montenegro into the community of NATO, which is needed more now than at any time since the end of the Cold War. I, also, by the way, recommend to my colleagues a visit to, really, one of the more beautiful countries on Earth. I yield for the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina, particularly on the issue of Russian sanctions. Yesterday, we saw the people of Russia, particularly the younger people, demonstrating peacefully in the streets of the cities and towns throughout Russia in order to protest the corruption and dictatorship of Vladimir Putin. At the time, the leader of the opposition was jailed. He was in the process of putting together a study that showed that Medvedev, who was Putin's puppet, was one of the wealthiest people on Earth. I was heartened by the willingness and the courage of the people of Russia to stand up and protest a corrupt, dictatorial, and brutal government that, unfortunately, they are saddled with. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation right now?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand that we will be voting in about 10 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have had the great honor and privilege of knowing the nominee to be our Director of National Intelligence for many years. In fact, I came to the House of Representatives in the election of 1984, and I had the honor of knowing Dan Coats beginning at that time. As is well known, Dan Coats left the Senate and became our Ambassador to Germany, where he did an outstanding job. He came back to the U.S. Senate and served in this body with distinction and honor. Now he goes on to serve as the Director of National Intelligence. I could argue that a dedicated, experienced, knowledgeable, and courageous Director of National Intelligence is now needed more than at any time that I can remember in the last many years. With divisions within the intelligence community, there are challenges to the credibility of the intelligence community along the lines that I have never seen. There are questions about the activities of the intelligence community. For example, the President of the United States alleges that Trump Tower was ``wiretapped,'' in his words, by the previous administration, and we see the former Director of National Intelligence both before the Congress and on national television stating that those allegations are not true. There are probably more questions and more controversy surrounding our intelligence services than at any time since anyone can remember, since Watergate. So this is a perfect time, in my view, for Dan Coats to assume the highest responsibilities of our Director of National Intelligence. He has the respect and indeed affection of Members on both sides of the aisle because of his successful efforts at working in a bipartisan fashion. He served on the Intelligence Committee. He served on that committee in a very dedicated and knowledgeable fashion. I hope my colleagues will unanimously vote in favor of our former colleague. Both sides of the aisle know him, and we know him well. I wish I had some of his qualities of congeniality and pleasantry. He has always been respectful of other views. Even in the fiercest debates that we might have, he has always been respectful of those who disagree. So he comes to the job with the much needed credibility that will make him immediately effective. Let's be frank. The intelligence communities are probably under greater attack in a whole variety of ways, both on whether the American people trust them to do the job that they are doing or whether they have become a partisan organization. I think that with the respect and appreciation and affection that those of us who had the privilege of knowing him--on both sides of the aisle--and knowing what an honorable and decent person he is, he will not only serve as an effective Director of National Intelligence, but he will serve to restore credibility. God knows we need credibility at this time, as we see the Russians trying to affect the outcome of our election, as we see today the Russians trying to affect the French election and possibly the German election, as we see unprecedented cyber attacks--more than at any time in the past. With the challenge of cyber alone, where our adversaries or our potential adversaries are equal to or even, in some cases, more capable of exercising their abilities and capabilities in the cyber realm, then we are in a very difficult and challenging struggle. That is why I think that many times in history, not only does the man make the job but the job makes the man. I am confident, in the case of Senator Dan Coats, that will be the case. I thank the Democratic leader for allowing this vote to take place so Dan Coats can get to work immediately. I urge my colleagues to offer their support with their vote for this nomination of a great and good and gentle man who has again volunteered to serve his Nation, for which all of us should be appreciative, and I am sure we are. 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. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 1 minute.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to render an ``aye'' vote for the nomination of Herbert McMaster to remain in active duty at the three-star level. He is experienced. He is talented. He knows what it is like to be in combat with the enemy, and I believe he is badly needed in this important position. I urge my colleagues to render an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for as long as I want.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be in the company of the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee and one who is most knowledgeable on issues of national security and foreign policy. I believe that Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire will be joining us. This is an issue that I am sorry has to be brought up in this fashion. It concerns a little country that wants to be a part of the European Union, that wants to be a part of the values, customs, and ideals of the West and has been under significant pressure and even assault from Russia. In fact, although it wasn't as recognized as it should have been at the time, Russia has sought to keep Montenegro from becoming a NATO member, launching an anti-NATO campaign that has been both brazen and unscrupulous. Russia has exerted outsized influence to stop Montenegro's membership, calling further NATO enlargement a ``provocation.'' Russia went so far as to plot a coup d'etat in which they planned to assassinate the Montenegrin Prime Minister and seize control of government buildings in the capital. I repeat: The Russians tried a coup in Montenegro. They wanted to kill the Prime Minister and overthrow the government in order to keep Montenegro from becoming a part of NATO. If we send this clear message to Russia that it won't have veto power over NATO enlargement decisions--and, frankly, I am puzzled that there is any objection to this, considering the fact that Montenegro has spent the last 7 years preparing for NATO eligibility. This has strengthened the country's defense and intelligence forces and transformed the country into a strong Western ally. It is a small country and a beautiful country, but it is an important Balkan nation. Its membership in NATO would improve the stability in the region, where, I know my colleagues would agree, there is great instability. Stopping Montenegro's NATO candidacy would represent a significant shift in U.S. policy and signify an acquiescence to Moscow's growing influence in the Balkans, producing a ripple effect throughout the region that would have profound ramifications on our shared security interests. The United States has benefited tremendously from peace and stability in Europe, and the foundation of that peace and stability is NATO. That is why we should stand with Montenegro or risk undermining our vision of a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace. I see my two colleagues here, Senator Cardin and Senator Shaheen. So I will conclude by saying this. This is a small country. This is a small country that has been the scene of conflict for centuries. This is a small country with a freely elected democratic government. This is a small country whose population wants to be part of NATO. They want to be part of the West. If we keep turning this down after 25 of the 28 governments in NATO have voted in favor of Montenegro's accession to NATO, my friends, we would be sending a terrible, terrible message. So in a few minutes, I will ask unanimous consent for us, as the U.S. Senate, to move forward with treaty consent. First, I would like to yield to my colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Maryland. This issue probably doesn't matter a lot to many of our voters. It probably is not something that is uppermost in their minds. But because of your hard work here in the Senate and your indepth knowledge of the issues and challenges that face this country, in what is arguably the most uncertain and turbulent time in the last 70 years, you have taken the time and the effort to learn about this small country, this small beautiful country whose only wish, whose only desire is to be a part of our community of NATO so that they can come under the umbrella of protection and move forward with a thriving democracy in a very volatile part of Europe. I want to especially thank Senator Shaheen and Senator Cardin for their advocacy, affection, and appreciation of the citizens of the small country who are only seeking what we sometimes take so much for granted. So I especially want to thank them. I also want to thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Corker, who also was very involved in getting this through. So, Mr. President, if there is objection--and I note that the Senator from Kentucky is on the floor, and I will say before I read this, if there is objection, you are achieving the objectives of Vladimir Putin. You are achieving the objectives of trying to dismember this small country that has already been the subject of an attempted coup. I have no idea why anyone would object to this, except that I will say, if they object, they are now carrying out the desires and ambitions of Vladimir Putin, and I do not say that lightly. unanimous consent request--executive calendar So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 1, Montenegro, Treaty Document No. 114-12; that the treaty be considered as having advanced through the various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolution of ratification; that any committee declarations be agreed to as applicable; that there be no amendments in order to the treaty or the resolution of ratification; that there be 2 hours for debate, equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on the resolution; that any statements be printed in the Record; that if the resolution of ratification is agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that if the resolution is not agreed to, the treaty be returned to the calendar, and that there be no motions or points of order in order other than a motion to reconsider; and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I note the Senator from Kentucky is leaving the floor without justification or any rationale for the action he has just taken. It is really remarkable that a Senator is blocking a treaty that is supported by an overwhelming number--perhaps 98, at least, of his colleagues. To come to the floor and object and walk away--walk away--the only conclusion that can be drawn when he walks away is that he has no argument to be made. He has no justification for his objection to having a small nation that is under assault from the Russians be part of NATO. So I repeat again: The Senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, and I know I speak for 90-some U.S. Senators with a message to the brave people of Montenegro who are upholding democracy, who have fought against a coup that would have overthrown their government, who cherish freedom, who cherish the alliance that it has held so long for so many years. We will not stop until we ratify your entrance into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I pledge to the people of Montenegro that Senator Shaheen, Senator Cardin, and I, and many other Senators, will not stop until this resolution is passed and we can strengthen not only Montenegro the nation and NATO, but the region. Mr. President, I yield the floor.