John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I honor an exceptional military leader and warrior. After nearly 41 years--a lifetime of service to our Nation--GEN Lloyd J. Austin III retired from the U.S. Army, having served most recently as the commander of U.S. Central Command. On this occasion, I believe it is fitting to recognize General Austin's many years of uniformed service to our Nation. Over the course of his military career spanning more than four decades, General Austin took on many of the toughest assignments; he led troops in combat. Most recently, he served as the combined forces commander, overseeing the military campaign to defeat ISIL in Iraq and Syria. General Austin's stellar career was also filled with a number of firsts. He was the first African American to command an Army division in combat, the first to command an Army corps in combat, the first to command an entire theater of war, and the first African-American Vice Chief of Staff of the Army and commander of U.S. Central Command. But this quiet warrior does not focus on his own accomplishments, and he never takes his eyes away from the mission. General Austin is a soldier's soldier. He earned a well-deserved reputation as a leader others wanted to follow into battle. On many occasions, they did. Many soldiers have talked about General Austin's inspiring leadership, particularly under demanding conditions, including combat. He was gifted with the ability to inspire confidence in his troops and young leaders. He always led them from the front, and he ensured they were successful in any and all endeavors. We saw this at the outset of the Iraq war in 2003 when, as the assistant division commander for maneuver for the 3rd Infantry Division, he helped to spearhead the invasion, maneuvering the division from Kuwait to Baghdad in a record 22 days. We saw it in Afghanistan in 2003-2004, when he was the commander of Combined Joint Task Force-180. We saw it again in Iraq in 2008 when, as the commander of Multi-National Corps-Iraq during the period when the surge forces were drawing down, he helped to achieve greater stability in the country. We saw it once more in Iraq in 2010-2011 when, as commander of U.S. Forces-Iraq, he oversaw the successful completion of Operations Iraqi Freedom and New Dawn. In an age of tweets and blogs, General Austin never seeks the limelight, preferring to let his actions speak for themselves. He is a consummate professional, and our Nation and its Armed Services will feel the loss of this distinguished officer, gifted leader, and highly decorated warrior. I join my fellow members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in expressing my respect and gratitude to GEN Lloyd Austin for his outstanding and selfless service to our Nation. I wish him and his wife, Charlene, all the best.

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, today the Senate is voting to achieve cloture on two bills that would improve the safety of our citizens and help ensure that foreign criminals convicted of a crime in the United States are no longer able to freely remain in our country. This issue was brought to the Nation's attention with the tragic murder of Kate Steinle, who was shot and killed by Francisco Lopez- Sanchez as she walked along a San Francisco waterfront pier. To be clear, this type of case is rare, but we should provide little lenience to convicted, repeat offenders that should not even be in the country. This is not a debate about immigration reform. Francisco Lopez- Sanchez is not a representative of the immigrant community. He is a criminal and someone that should have been removed from the country when in the custody of the San Francisco's sheriff's department. For those that wish to defend this man or the policies that allowed him to stay here, I would recommend looking clearly at his criminal history and interactions with law enforcement while in the United States. February 2, 1993: Lopez-Sanchez is convicted of felony heroin possession in Washington State criminal court and sentenced to 21 days in jail. May 12, 1993: Lopez-Sanchez is convicted of felony narcotics manufacturing in Washington and sentenced to 9 months in jail. November 2, 1993: Lopez-Sanchez is convicted of felony heroin possession in Pierce County, WA, and sentenced to 4 months in jail. June 9, 1994: Lopez-Sanchez is convicted of misdemeanor imitation controlled substance in Multnomah, OR, and ordered to pay a fine. June 10, 1994: Lopez-Sanchez is arrested by Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, and convicted of a controlled substance violation and an aggravated felony. A Federal immigration judge orders him deported on June 20, and he is removed to Mexico. July 14, 1994: Lopez-Sanchez illegally reenters the U.S. after his first deportation and falls into the hands of Arizona State authorities. His probation is revoked, and he is sentenced to 93 days in jail. July 11, 1996: Lopez-Sanchez is arrested in Washington and convicted of felony heroin possession. He is sentenced to 12 months, plus 1 day in prison. March 12, 1997: INS arrests Lopez-Sanchez on an order to show cause and charges him as a deportable alien because of his illegal reentry and his aggravated felony conviction. He is deported back to Mexico for the second time on April 4, 1997. July 22, 1997: Lopez-Sanchez is arrested in Arizona for his first known act of violence on an assault and threatening/intimidation charge. January 13, 1998: Lopez-Sanchez is arrested by U.S. Border Patrol agents. Two days later, an immigration judge orders him removed, and he is deported for the third time on February 2 of that year. February 8, 1998: Lopez-Sanchez illegally reenters the U.S. 6 days after his previous deportation, but is apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol. September 3, 1998: He is convicted of felony reentry in U.S. District Court and sentenced to 63 months in prison. February 20, 2003: Seemingly at the end of his prison sentence, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons hands Lopez-Sanchez over to INS. He is deported again to Mexico on March 6. July 4, 2003: Lopez-Sanchez again illegally reenters the U.S. and is apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol, this time in Texas. November 7, 2003: Lopez-Sanchez is convicted of two Federal charges: reentry after removal and violation of a supervised Federal release. He is sentenced to 51 months and 21 months for the charges, respectively. June 29, 2009: After a lengthy prison sentence, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons hands Lopez-Sanchez over to ICE. He is immediately deported to Mexico. September 20, 2009: Lopez-Sanchez again reenters the U.S. illegally. This time, he is arrested by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents in Eagle Pass, TX. October 14, 2009: A U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas files for a reindictment of Lopez-Sanchez for illegal reentry after removal. He is charged in September 2010 for violating Federal probation. May 12, 2011: Lopez-Sanchez is sentenced to 46 months in prison and 36 months of supervised release for illegal reentry and probation violations. Two months later, ICE places a detainer request with the Bureau of Prisons upon his release from prison. In October 2013, ICE's Southern California Security Communities Support Center places a similar detainer request with the Bureau of Prisons. March 26, 2015: After serving his sentence in Federal prison in Victorville, CA, Lopez-Sanchez is released and handed over directly to the San Francisco sheriff's department, which had a warrant out for felony sale of marijuana. The next day, ICE received an automatic electronic notification that Lopez-Sanchez had been placed into the custody of the San Francisco sheriff's department. ICE then placed a detainer request with the sheriff to be notified prior to Lopez- Sanchez's release. April 15, 2015: The San Francisco sheriff's department releases Lopez-Sanchez from its custody without notifying ICE. July 1, 2015: Lopez-Sanchez allegedly shoots Steinle on San Francisco's Pier 14 as she is walking with her father and a friend. Steinle dies. Lopez-Sanchez is arrested soon after. As you can see, Lopez-Sanchez was apprehended and deported five times by Customs and Border Protection. The system failed Kate Steinle when San Francisco, a sanctuary city that refuses to cooperate with ICE, decided to release a convicted felon rather than contact DHS to have him deported to Mexico. The bills we are voting on today would help prevent a similar tragedy from happening again. S. 2193 will provide a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for any illegal immigrant who reenters the United States after having been convicted of an aggravated felony or after having been twice convicted of illegally reentering the United States. S. 3100 will withhold certain Federal funds from cities with sanctuary policies in an effort to convince these cities to allow their law enforcement to cooperate with Federal immigration officials. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on these two bills to prevent a further tragedy like that suffered by the Steinle family.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I honor a dedicated soldier and business entrepreneur who has demonstrated illustrious service to our Nation while in uniform and in private, public, and academic sectors. After 34 years of service as a model citizen-soldier, LTG Jeffery W. Talley is retiring from his distinguished Army career. LTG Jeffrey W. Talley served as both the Chief of the Army Reserve and the Commanding General of U.S. Army Reserve Command from 11 June 2012 to 1 June 2016. Lieutenant General Talley led the Army Reserve through one of the most tumultuous times in its history, guiding the command through the initial phases of a drawdown of forces as it simultaneously supported the war in Afghanistan and executed multiple contingency deployments in support of our Nation. Through his leadership, Lieutenant General Talley has forever changed the mission, culture, and composition of the Army Reserve. He leaves a combat-tested component that is more responsive to the Joint and Army warfighting requirements and contributes directly to our ability to fight and win our Nation's wars. Lieutenant General Talley is responsible for developing and executing critical enabler capabilities to the Joint Force through the use of Army Reserve Engagement Cells and Teams, AREC/Ts. AREC/Ts assist Army Service Component Commands and Combatant Commands by integrating Army Reserve capabilities into plans, exercises, and operational activities and provide reachback capability to the whole of the U.S. Army Reserve Command's CONUS-based theater enabling commands. The Army Reserve possesses the majority of force structure of the Army's total capability in many key areas to include more than 90 percent of the Army's Civil Affairs capability, more than 50 percent of the Army's total logistics and medical capability, and nearly all of the Army's theater opening capability. Nothing is more important to Lieutenant General Talley than taking care of our Nation's most precious resource: our soldiers. As a citizen-soldier himself, Lieutenant General Talley is acutely aware of the challenges and sacrifices of Army Reserve soldiers as they juggle their service to the Nation, community, and family well-being. This focus on soldiers and their families, combined with the recognition that soldier support is a critical component of soldier readiness, led him to create the Private Public Partnership Office, P3O. P3O has blossomed into one of the DOD's most effective hiring and readiness generating programs. This indispensable capability recognizes the tie that Army Reserve soldiers have with their local communities. Lieutenant General Talley codified the comprehensive transformation of the Army Reserve from a strategic, static component of the Army, to an integral, operational asset critical to the success of the Army's mission to provide trained and ready forces. Lieutenant General Talley's accomplishments will benefit the Army Reserve, the Army, and the Joint Force for years to come. Jeffery Talley and his wife, Linda, have four children: Christopher, Joshua, and Matthew--a combat veteran--and Ashley. The Talley family moved 23 times throughout Jeffery's military career. During those times, Linda volunteered as a senior family readiness adviser. For her dedication, she was named ``Volunteer of the Year'' and received the Essayons Award for spouses who make significant contributions to the Army Engineer Regiment. I wish Jeffery, Linda, and the entire Talley family the best in their future endeavors and the next chapter of their lives.

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. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. McCAIN. I won't take the entire 10 minutes. I notice the Senator from Oregon, and I would be glad to yield to him 3 minutes of the 10 minutes remaining so he can speak in his usual articulate fashion.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield 3 minutes of my 10 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in the last several days the conversation and the dispute and the rhetoric has been devoted to the issue of guns, which is certainly a worthy cause, but, unfortunately for the American people, the issue of how we got here has been ignored. Guns don't fire themselves. Guns and weapons are fired by people. They are fired by people, and in the cases of Orlando, San Bernardino, Paris, and others, they are fired by people who have been radicalized or trained or in some coordinated fashion have inflicted murder, death, and mayhem on innocent people. While we in all our righteous indignation talk so strongly and so passionately about what we have to do about the weapons, we are ignoring exactly how all of this happened and why it happened, and it is because of the policies of this President and this administration from the beginning. From the beginning this President wanted to get out of Iraq, wanted to get out of Afghanistan, believing in some delusional fashion that if we got out of these conflicts, the conflict would end. Obviously, that has not been true. I want to go forward and with the Senator from South Carolina, I want to go through a chronology of events very quickly. President Obama in October 2011 said: The tide of war is receding. . . . The long war in Iraq will come to an end by the end of this year. . . . We're also moving into a new phase in the relationship between the United States and Iraq. We'll partner with an Iraq that contributes to regional security and peace. . . . Just as Iraqis have persevered through war, I'm confident that they can build a future worthy of their history as a cradle of civilization. President Obama, December 2011: ``We're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq.'' President Bush, July 2007: To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we'd be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous. I know my colleagues have not missed it. American troops have had to return to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous, and those are the words of President George W. Bush in July of 2007. In October of 2011, at the same time that the President said that ``the tide of war is receding,'' I, myself, said: [T]his decision will be viewed as a strategic victory for our enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime, which has worked relentlessly to ensure a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. [A]ll of our military commanders with whom I have spoken on my repeated visits to Iraq have told me that U.S. national security interests and the enduring needs of Iraq's military required a continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond 2011 to safeguard the gains that we and our Iraqi partners have made. Nearly 4,500 Americans have given their lives for our mission in Iraq. Countless more have been wounded. . . . I fear that all of the gains made possible by these brave Americans in Iraq, at such grave cost, are now at risk. That is what I said in October of 2011. As the situation worsened in December of 2011, I said: [Domestic] political considerations in [the United States and Iraq] have been allowed to trump our common security interests. All of the progress that both Iraqis and Americans have made, at such painful and substantial cost, has now been put at greater risk. Senators McCain and Graham in December 2011: If Iraq slides back into sectarian violence, the consequences will be catastrophic for the Iraqi people and U.S. interests in the Middle East, and a clear victory for al Qaeda and Iran. A deterioration of the kind we are now witnessing in Iraq was not unforeseen, and now the U.S. government must do whatever it can to help Iraqis stabilize the situation. We call upon the Obama Administration and the Iraqi government to reopen negotiations with the goal of maintaining-- Reopen negotiations with the United States of America-- with the goal of maintaining an effective residual U.S. military presence in Iraq before the situation deteriorates further. What we were saying is, we didn't have to pull everybody out of Iraq. We could have stayed. What they kept saying is: What we need is a status of forces agreement. The fact is that now there is no mention of a status of forces agreement, and there are 4,500 Americans there and possibly more. President Obama, January of 2014: ``The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant.'' He went on to say they are the JV team; ISIS is the JV. Senators McCain and Graham in October of 2013 wrote: By nearly every indicator, the situation in Iraq has worsened dramatically since the beginning of the conflict in Syria and the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011. . . . What's worse, the deteriorating conflict in Syria has enabled al Qaeda in Iraq to transform into the larger and more lethal Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), which now has a major base for operations spanning both Iraq and Syria. It may just be a matter of time until al Qaeda seeks to use its new safe haven in these countries to launch attacks against U.S. interests. That was what Senator Graham and Senator McCain said in October 2013. Senators McCain and Graham, January 2014: Reports that Al-Qaeda fighters have taken over Fallujah and are gaining ground in other parts of Iraq are as tragic as they are predictable. The Administration's failure in Iraq has been compounded by its failed policy in Syria. It has sat by and refused to take any meaningful action, while the conflict has claimed more than 130,000 lives-- It has now taken more than 400,000 lives, by the way. driven a quarter of the Syrian population from their homes, fueled the resurgence of Al-Qaeda, and devolved into a regional conflict that now threatens our national security interests and the stability of Syria's neighbors, especially Iraq. As the situation worsened in April of 2014, I said: It is reality check time in Iraq, where the Syria-Iraq border has turned into a major highway and safe haven for transnational terrorist groups. The black flags of al-Qaeda fly over the city of Fallujah, where hundreds of U.S. troops were killed and injured. Violence across the country has reached the same levels as at the height of the Iraqi insurgency in 2008, and the country is creeping dangerously close to a reignition of civil conflict. President Obama, September 2014: ``We will degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL.'' John McCain, September 2014: The President's plan will likely be insufficient to destroy ISIS, which is the world's largest, richest terrorist army. To destroy ISIS, create conditions for enduring security in the Middle East, and protect the American people, additional steps are necessary. Half measures against ISIS only make it stronger and will not lead to its destruction. That was almost 2 years ago. Senators Graham and McCain, October of 2014: We continue to urge the Administration to quickly adopt a comprehensive strategy [against ISIL] and avoid the perils of gradual escalation. Degrading and ultimately destroying ISIS will require additional actions that we have long advocated, such as the deployment of U.S. Special Forces and military advisers on the ground to direct air strikes and advise our local partners; the expansion of assistance for moderate Syrian forces, and the establishment of safe zones protected by no fly zones in Syria. . . . That is ultimately what it will take to destroy ISIS and keep America safe, and we cannot avoid to delay any longer. That was nearly 2 years ago. The list goes on and on. I will make it a part of the Record. My friend is here. All during this time, while Senator Graham and I were warning time after time, using every means possible to warn the American people and our colleagues that this thing was going to escalate because the President of the United States did not have a strategy, his policies failed. Now we have attacks on the United States of America. I have been pilloried because I used the word ``personal.'' I said I misspoke. But have no doubt about why we are where we are today, and that is because this administration, this President, called ISIL the JV, saying that if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant. Does anybody today believe that ISIS is JV? The list goes on and on. I want my colleague Senator Graham to speak for a moment, and I will go on with these because we can see the competing statements between the administration and the President and Senators Graham and McCain. They are starkly different. What else has happened there? The echo chamber, as was described by Mr. Rhodes, one of the President's chief advisers--the echo chamber of Krugman, of Zakaria, of Friedman, of Ignatius, all the echo chambers out there saying: He's doing fine. Everything is fine. This guy is leading great and not to worry. Things are really great. The echo chamber that Mr. Rhodes described in an article in The Atlantic about how they were able to orchestrate the Iranian agreement is out there. So as we warned--as we warned and predicted--I wish we had been wrong. I would love to stand on the floor of the Senate and say: Senator Graham and I were wrong. We didn't have to worry about ISIS. They were the JV. We were right, and we continue to be right, and we still don't have a strategy. But there is the echo chamber out there. The echo chamber that goes on and on. My friends, I believe the American people deserve better than what they are getting from this echo chamber, who are the Obamaphiles that can incredibly--incredibly--praise all of these mistakes. Finally, I urge my colleagues--and I will go through some more of these--but my colleagues, I warn that unless we get a real strategy and stop this incrementalism, we are going to see--perhaps we will retake Fallujah, as we had. We may even retake Mosul. But this ISIS is still metastasizing and spreading throughout the world, and there is no better expert than the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who basically said that in a hearing to not only the Members of Congress but the American people. I would like to yield for some comments to my friend, the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a colloquy with Senator Graham.

Mr. McCAIN. May I also add that at the same time, this President and his administration were saying that we can't get a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi Government; that has to go through the Parliament. Is there any mention today of this same President who says it is absolutely necessary for us to have a status of forces agreement as we incrementally increase our troop strength in Iraq?

Mr. McCAIN. Certainly.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, obviously I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, who knows as much about this issue as any Member of Congress or anyone else, and I appreciate the great job he is doing and his important remarks. Look, this is pretty simple. The amendment has the support of the National Fraternal Order of Police; the Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Association, which is the largest national professional law enforcement association; and the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association. Literally every law enforcement agency in America supports this amendment so they can do their job and defend America. Ronald Reagan used to say that facts are stubborn things. The fact is, according to the Director of the CIA, according to the Director of National Intelligence, right now Baghdadi, in Raqqa, is calling people in and saying: Get on this. Get on this and get back to the United States or Europe and contact us then and we will attack. There will be more attacks, according to both the Director of the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence. Right now there are, unfortunately, young people in this country who are self-radicalizing. And what vehicle is doing the self- radicalization? It is the Internet. We are not asking for content here; we are just asking for usage, the same way we can do with financial records, the same way we can do with telephone records. This is an important tool. How could anyone--and I say this with great respect for the Senator from Oregon. He is a passionate and articulate advocate for what he believes in, and he has my respect and friendship. But I ask, in all due respect, after the events of the last few days, when we know that attacker was self-radicalized--and what did he use for it? He used the Internet. I don't know if that attack could have been prevented, but I know that attacks can be prevented because that is the view of the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Director of the CIA, and the Director of National Intelligence, who are not interested in taking away our liberties but are interested in carrying out their fundamental responsibilities, which happen to be to protect this Nation. So all I can say to my colleagues is that we need to protect the rights of all of our citizens. We can't intrude in their lives. This constant tension will go on between the right of privacy and national security, and I think there are gray areas we need to debate and come to agreement on finally over time, but this issue is, honestly, a no- brainer. When the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who is probably one of the most respected individuals in America, admired and respected by all of us, is saying this is one of his highest priorities in order to protect America, then I think we should listen to him. When the Director of the CIA says they are planning further attacks on the United States of America and Europe, we should give them the tools they need to prevent that. When the Director of National Intelligence testifies before the Committee on Armed Services that there will be further attacks, shouldn't we give them this rudimentary tool, which, according to the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, was basically an oversight? Shouldn't we correct that, and can't we protect the rights of every individual and every American and still enact this really modest change, which, although in some ways modest, according to the Director of the FBI, is of his highest priorities? So let's listen. Let's listen to those whom we entrust our Nation's security to after going through the confirmation process and the approval or disapproval of the Members of this body, who are then entrusted with the solemn obligation of defending this Nation. They are saying unanimously that they need this authority in order to carry out their responsibilities. Mr. President, we are going to vote here in a couple of minutes, and I would urge my colleagues to respect the views--maybe not mine, maybe not the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, but let's respect the views of those who are entrusted with defending this Nation. I believe we should give them this authority. This debate will go on, I say to my friend from Oregon. There will be other areas where there is tension between the right of every citizen to privacy and the requirement to defend this Nation because we are facing a challenge the likes of which we have never seen before, and that is this whole thing of self-radicalization and people who are sneaking into this country to commit acts of terror, which has the entire American public concerned--San Bernardino, Orlando. I hope the Senator from Oregon and those who will vote no on this amendment understand that in the view of the experts on terrorism in this world--absolutely are convinced there will be further attacks. Shouldn't we give them this fundamental tool, this basic tool they have asked for? I believe they respect all Americans' right to privacy as well. I urge my colleagues to vote aye on this amendment, and then we can move on to other ways to help our enforcement agencies and our intelligence agencies defend this Nation against this threat, which is not going away. Mr. President, I believe my time has expired.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. May I also point out to my friend that the President and members of the administration continuously say: We only have two choices. One is do nothing or very little, or we have to send 200,000 troops. You know, I grow so weary of that straw man being set up by the President of the United States, because it is intellectually dishonest. What we have called for--I am not sure this President can lead and do it because he has no credibility in the Middle East anywhere. When he decided that they had crossed the redline and we were going to take military action and then did nothing, that had a profound effect throughout the Middle East. There is no trust or confidence in the United States. But if there were, it would be approximately 100,000 troops--about 10,000 Americans, the Sunni Arabs, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the other Gulf countries--a force that would go to Iraq today and take out ISIS. I want to assure my fellow Americans that as long as ISIS has a geographic base in Raqqa, they will be exporting terror into the United States and Europe. Baghdadi, we know, is sending people with these devices--secure encrypted devices. We know there is self-radicalization taking place as we speak. We know they are being inserted into the refugee stream. We know these things. As long as they have a capital and we have no strategy for retaking that capital, there will be further attacks, as the Director of the CIA has said, as the Director of National Intelligence has said. There will be further attacks on the United States of America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these statements by the President and by Senator Graham and myself.

Mr. McCAIN. I would point out that, as long ago as August 2014, Senator Graham and I said: Americans need to know that ISIS is not just a problem for Iraq and Syria. It is a threat to the United States. Doing too little to combat ISIS has been a problem. Doing less is certainly not the answer now . . . ISIS presents Mr. Obama with a similar challenge, and it has already forced him to begin changing course, albeit grudgingly. . . . If he does not, ISIS will continue to grow into an even graver danger to our allies and to us. It was obvious. Here is a quote from President Obama from November 2015: ``We have contained them.'' Really? We have contained them? Again, General Dunford said, in a further warning, that ISIL is not contained. I said in December of 2015: ``As long as this caliphate exists in Raqqa, they are going to be able to orchestrate attacks and metastasize and maybe even move to Libya.'' Guess what. They moved to Libya. The list goes on and on. From August 2011, here is one of my favorites from President Obama: ``For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.'' An Obama administration official said in the New Yorker in December 2014, 4 years later: ``The meaning of `Assad has to go' has evolved.'' ``The meaning of Assad has to go has evolved.'' Anyway, the list goes on and on. President Obama said in October 2015: ``An attempt by Russia and Iran to prop up Assad and try to pacify the population is just going to get them stuck in a quagmire and it won't work.'' ``In a quagmire, and it won't work.'' Secretary Kerry said in March of 2016: Russia is now helping with the cessation of hostilities. And if Russia can help us to actually effect this political transition, that is all to the strategic interest of the United States of America. And now, what did they do? They bombed the people we trained and equipped. They murdered. Bashar Assad has murdered so many more than ISIS with his barrel bombs and the indiscriminate killing of men, women, and children. He has never paid a penalty for the use of sarin gas, with which he gassed thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Syria. Does anybody believe that Assad is leaving power anytime soon? Of course not. So again, we have been talking about this, and we have been warning about it. By the way, Senator Graham and I are always described in the liberal media this way: ``Senator Graham and Senator McCain, among Obama's harshest critics.'' They do not mention that we called for the removal of President Bush's Secretary of Defense. No, we are not his harshest critics. We are the ones who have been telling the truth to the American people ever since this debacle began, because we have an obligation--we have an obligation--to those men and women in uniform serving in the longest wars in our history. We have an obligation to the families of those who have been killed and wounded. We have an obligation to try to force this President to understand that we have failed. We are failing, and we have failed. Yes, we are making some gains with the retaking of Fallujah, after two battles--by the way, where American troops were wounded and killed. There is some small success. But the fact is that none of this had to happen, and that is the great tragedy of the last few years. None of it had to happen, and this President didn't lead because he believed all we needed to do was get out and those conflicts would end. So I say directly to my colleagues: The President's policies are responsible for the deaths, untold deaths, the quagmire we are in, the metastasizing of ISIL and the rise of Russia as a new power in the Middle East and the retention of Bashar Assad ensconced as a ruler of Syria--the same person about whom the President of the United States said: It is not whether Bashar Assad leaves power; it is when.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to summarize, the reason Senator Graham and I came to the floor at this time is because it is pretty obvious the debate now is over guns, and there should be a legitimate debate over the use and availability of weapons. I hope we could reach a reasonable compromise so we can act. I want to emphasize, we would not be having this debate if it were not for the failed policies that led to where we are today, where a young man--either instructed or self-radicalized--took the lives of nearly 50 brave Americans. That was not like a hurricane. It was not like an earthquake. It was because this President has failed to lead. Look at the world as it was in the times when I was talking and look at the world today. We have to have a strategy to defeat ISIS, and we cannot stand to have this brutal dictator named Bashar al-Assad continue to slaughter his own people. We have to stand with our allies and stand with our friends, but what is most important is, we have to have a strategy to defeat this enemy, which has proven at least twice it has the ability to attack the mainland of the United States of America. That is not there today. Amendment No. 4787

Mr. McCAIN. Absolutely.

Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend and colleague who has done so much hard work on trying to achieve a careful balance and compromise that all of us could agree to on the issue of weapons, I appreciate the question and I appreciate his work. I can't specifically state I know for a fact that the failure of the ability of the FBI to monitor and know about use of the Internet--not content but use of the Internet, such as the Senator mentioned IP addresses and others. I can't say that would have prevented it. What I can say, and the Senator knows, the Director of the FBI said this is the most important tool he needs to defend this country against further attacks. Is there anyone now in America who doesn't believe there is going to be another self-radicalized or instructed individual who will try to attack the United States of America? Of course not. In their wisdom, a majority of my colleagues over there and a group of my colleagues over here have rejected the urgent request from the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have seen a lot of strange votes around here, I would say to my friend from Texas, but to see Republicans, who advertise themselves as trying to protect the people of this Nation, not give the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation the tool he needs the most to counter what is clearly coming, frankly, is one of the most puzzling and disappointing actions that have been taken by my colleagues on this side of the aisle.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the White House approved the FBI's request for this fix and sent forward a proposal, and then FBI Director James Comey, who I think is well respected--in fact, probably one of the most respected men in America--summed up the importance of this amendment, the Director of the FBI. No one who I know of has accused the Director of the FBI of trying to adopt some unconstitutional practices or gather power upon himself and his agency. Here is what he said: This amendment ``would be enormously helpful.'' That is despite what the Senator from Oregon says. He said this is essentially ``a typo in the law that was passed a number of years ago that requires us to get records, ordinary transaction records that we can get in most contexts with a non-court order, because it doesn't involve content of any kind, to go to the FISA court to get a court order to get these records. Nobody intended that.'' That is what the Director of the FBI says. That is what the record shows, as is important. As the Director of the FBI says: Nobody intended that. Nobody I've heard thinks that's necessary. It would save us a tremendous amount of work hours if we could fix that, without any compromise to anyone's civil liberties or civil rights. I agree with the Director of the FBI. This amendment--I am astounded, very frankly, that there is not a unanimous vote on this. It is simple. If the FBI is able to go into your financial written records, if they are able to go into your telephone records, then, pray tell, what is the difference between those and electronic records? It just so happens electronic records are much larger. So don't take my word for it, I say to my colleagues, but I would listen to the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association--that renowned ``corrupt'' organization. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association--the Nation's largest nonpartisan professional association which represents Federal law enforcement officers from every Federal law enforcement agency, including the FBI--strongly supports this amendment. They go on to say--again, contrary to what the Senator from Oregon says, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association says that this amendment ``would correct an oversight in the law that has impeded the FBI's ability to obtain these records in national security cases on a timely basis.'' They go on to say that ``for over fifteen years-- including the eight years after 9/11--the FBI continued to use''--what they are talking about now is they want ``to gather electronic communications transactional records. Significantly, this authority was never used to acquire these records indiscriminantly.'' They go on to say that the amendment ``is necessary to protect America from terrorist threats and transnational criminal organizations.'' This is what those men and women--thousands of them are members of this organization. The list is incredibly long. The Federal law enforcement agencies believe this amendment is necessary to protect them and America from terrorist threats and transnational criminal organizations. It is clear. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letters of support be printed in the Record: the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association letter, the National Fraternal Order of Police letter, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association letter.

Mr. McCAIN. I will go on. The Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association says that it is a voluntary professional association currently representing over 13,000 active-duty and retired FBI special agents. Here are 13,000 FBI agents, active and retired, who believe this amendment is essential for them to be able to do their job and protect America. By the way--hello--we just had an attack in Orlando where 49 Americans were slaughtered, and we are arguing whether we should allow the FBI to find out not the information in electronic communications, but just find out about electronic communications. That is what this is about. I will quote from the 13,000 active-duty and retired FBI special agents: I write to express our support for addressing issues related to Electronic Communication Transactional Records (``ECTRs''). . . . The relevant amendment, referred to as the ``ECTR Fix,'' would be wholly consistent with the effort to update electronic privacy laws, and would help the FBI more effectively investigate and thwart terrorist plots. After Orlando, do we want to help the FBI more effectively investigate and thwart terrorist plots or do we want to restrict their ability to do so? Is that what the Senator from Oregon wants? I don't think so. Notwithstanding the well-funded efforts by technology companies and activists to misrepresent the ECTR Fix, the truth is that clarifying the language [of subsection 2709] would strike a familiar and effective balance between privacy and security. ECTRs provide information about the IP addresses, routing, and sessions times for electronic communications, and electronic service providers have complied with FBI requests . . . for years. . . . Given the importance of protecting the public from terrorist threats, we support an amendment to include the ECTR Fix . . . as well as the efforts to address the issue through other legislative vehicles. We hope that Congress will make these reasonable and common-sense changes in a timely manner. It is signed by Reynaldo Tariche, the president of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association. So we have a choice here. We have a choice here. We have those who are so worried about privacy and those whose job and whose solemn duty is to protect this Nation--Federal law enforcement officers, the FBI, 13,000 of the FBI agents, and then, of course, we have those who are under assault on a daily basis--our police. This is a letter from the Fraternal Order of Police ``writing on behalf of the members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our support'' for this amendment which will be offered. ``The amendment will provide Federal law enforcement with the tools they need to investigate and prevent terrorist attacks.'' It isn't any more complicated than that. My remarks probably will be a little longer. The Fraternal Order of Police has it right. This will provide an ability to prevent and counter further terrorist attacks. How many attacks do we need? I would ask my colleagues who are opposed to this simple amendment, how many attacks? Another San Bernardino? Another Orlando? Two or three more attacks before we give the Director of the FBI the tools he says he needs and wants to protect this Nation? That is what this is all about. The Fraternal Order of Police goes on to say that ``the amendment would make clear Congressional intent that such requests do not allow access to any content but that name, email, Internet Protocol (IP) and physical addresses, telephone/instrument number, account number, login history, length and type of service as well as the means by which the service is paid for be made available to law enforcement.'' The Senator from Oregon, if I got his remarks right, says: Well, there has been corruption of it. There has been abuse. There has been misapplication. One of our jobs is oversight, if that is happening. But I also would say that is a damning indictment of these men and women who are putting their lives on the line every single day and are begging for this tool to defend this Nation. The Fraternal Order of Police says: I urge you and the Members of the United States Senate to support [the amendment] to ensure the timeliness and effectiveness of our nation's counterterror and counterintelligence operations. Our nation's security and defense should not be held hostage or investigations jeopardized because of a ``typo.'' Thank you as always for your consideration of the views of the more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police. These are the views of more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police. I think maybe we ought to listen to the will of 330,000 men and women who are out there every day defending this Nation. Maybe we ought to listen to them. Maybe they are the ones whose lives are in danger. They are the ones who are the first targets of the terrorists. Maybe we ought to listen to their views rather than some misguided view that somehow this invades our privacy, to find out simply whether an address has been used and for how long--not content. If content is involved, that requires going to the FISA Court. Last week the Director of the CIA appeared before a rare open session of the Senate Intelligence Committee to deliver a stern warning to the American people: ISIL has built a global apparatus with the intent to plot and incite attacks against the West. He explained that despite our 2-year air campaign in Iraq and Syria and despite our efforts to build and fight with local forces and despite the best work of our special operators, ISIL and other terrorist groups continue to evolve and plan to kill innocent Americans who reject their hateful ideology. That is the warning of the Director of the CIA. The CIA's warning obviously comes after the attack. It is remarkable. The CIA's notice about ISIL's continued strength followed years of warnings by the Director of the FBI and others in law enforcement who have explained to policymakers time and time again that the use of advanced technologies by our enemies is making it increasingly difficult for law enforcement to uncover and stop attacks. That is their view. We give these people the responsibility to defend this Nation, particularly against these attacks, and they are telling us they can't adequately defend against these attacks because of a provision we have that they can't even look at the fact that a site was used. By the way, if the Senator from Oregon and others believe this is an invasion of privacy, then why don't they propose an amendment that telephone and financial records should also be in that same category? Of course, that has the problem of being consistent. The law allows the FBI to request telephone billing information, financial transaction records, but terrorists don't radicalize by phone and they don't listen to ISIL propaganda through financial transactions. They radicalize through the Internet. I repeat: They radicalize through the Internet. So if they are radicalizing through the Internet, shouldn't we gain as much possible information as we can by monitoring their use of the Internet? Reports indicate that in 2013 the Orlando terrorist was removed from a terrorist watch list because there was insufficient information showing he was radicalized and therefore a threat. Perhaps--and I emphasize ``perhaps''--if the FBI had more effective authorities that would allow them to more easily determine Internet activity of those suspected of radicalization, he would have remained, perhaps, on the watch list. Currently, the FBI can only receive electronic transactional records information by going through the FISA Court process, which is a time-intensive court process that often takes over a month. With the thousands of potentially radicalized individuals already in the United States, we need to make it easier, not harder, for the FBI to receive the critical evidence they need so they can focus their investigations. Let me state again clearly for the benefit of my colleagues what this provision does not do. It does not allow the FBI to see the content of emails or conversations in Internet chat rooms. As I said before, this provision is narrowly drawn and carefully limited. The administration, Congress, and national security experts from both sides of the aisle have spoken repeatedly about taking on ISIL's Internet radicalism. This provision, according to the Director of the FBI, is a most important tool to give the FBI valuable data points to do just that. We face a threat from individuals who have been radicalized by the words, actions, and ideology of terrorist groups. These individuals may act alone, without clear direction from terrorist groups, but they fulfill the intent and desire of these groups. We must ensure that our law enforcement authorities keep pace with the tactics and methods of our adversaries. If our adversaries seek to attack us by inciting lone-wolf violence, we have to make sure law enforcement has the authorities they need to investigate and, we hope, stop those attacks. Our intelligence and law enforcement officers are the best in the world, but as terrorist networks grow and metastasize around the world, we ask them to bear an increasingly difficult--some even say impossible--burden. We ask them to uncover threats by individuals who are hidden among millions of law-abiding citizens. We ask them to determine which of us has been inspired by evil to do harm to our fellow citizens, and we ask that they do this difficult task with little or no impact on anyone's privacy. We have to recognize this threat for what it is. As our enemy evolves, so, too, we must evolve and strengthen our counterterrorism tools and authorities. Let's stop tying the hands of those who wish only to keep us safe and on many occasions are ready to make themselves unsafe in order to protect our fellow citizens. I guess my colleagues are presented with a choice. As the Senator from Oregon, with great skill and oratorical tools, will talk about rights of privacy, will talk about constitutional protections, all of those things--this is simple. This is a simple amendment. It has nothing to do with going into these sites and finding out information. That requires going to court. All it does is tell the FBI, whose Director has pled for this capability--does anyone assume the Director of the FBI wants to act in an unconstitutional fashion? Of course not. But you must accept the fact that it is his responsibility to protect the Nation and, therefore, when he asks for the tools to protect this Nation, then maybe we ought to pay attention and give them to him. I know of no one who is an objective observer who believes it would be unconstitutional to adopt this amendment. I don't know about abuses in the past that the Senator from Oregon says have taken place. I know abuses have taken place in the past on almost any aspect of American life. But I also know that when you have all of our police--330,000 of them, representing them--13,000 in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal law enforcement agencies from all over America--the list is incredibly long--all asking for the ability to defend this Nation, by God, I think we should give it to them. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I strongly agree with my friend from Montana. Elevating Cyber Command is one of the most critical pieces to ensuring our Nation is at the forefront of the rising threats abroad. Earlier this year in the Armed Services Committee, I held a hearing on Cyber Command. I was told by the commander of Cyber Command, ADM Mike Rodgers, that this elevation would make them faster, generating better mission outcomes. These are the individuals we have leading the fight against ISIS on the newly established online battlefield--better mission outcomes is something we need. At a time when we are also debating what the entire combatant command structure should look like, one thing is clear: Cyber is growing, and its command structure needs to grow as well. I look forward to ensuring this debate is settled in conference and Cyber Command is elevated to a combatant command. Does my colleague from Montana agree?