John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I will be pleased to yield.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, I object.

Mr. McCAIN. I would certainly agree, I would say to my friend from Maine, because if the adversaries that want to commit cyber attacks against the United States of America and our allies believe that there is no price to pay for those attacks, then where is the demotivating factor in all of this which would, if they failed, then keep them from doing what they are doing? It seems to me that this is an act of war, and I don't use that term lightly but I am trying to use it carefully. If you damage intentionally another nation's military or its economy or its ability to function as a government--I would ask my friend from Maine--wouldn't that fit into at least a narrow interpretation of an act of war? If so, then should we only have defenses? Have we ever been in a conflict where we only have defenses and not the capability to go out and deter further aggression?

Mr. McCAIN

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, in about half an hour, the Senate will vote on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, and I hope that an overwhelming majority of my colleagues will understand the importance of this legislation in these very turbulent and difficult times. The Constitution gives the Congress the power and the responsibility to provide for the common defense, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. For 53 years, Congress has fulfilled its most important constitutional duties by passing the National Defense Authorization Act. It is precisely because of this legislation's critical importance to our national security that it is still one of the few bills in Congress that enjoys bipartisan support year after year. Indeed, this year's NDAA has been supported by Senators on both sides of the aisle. The Senate Committee on Armed Services overwhelmingly approved the NDAA in a 22-to-4 vote back in May. The full Senate followed by passing the NDAA in a partisan vote of 71 to 25. In recent weeks, some of my Democratic colleagues and the President have threatened to block this legislation because of disagreements about broader spending issues that are totally unrelated to defense and totally unrelated to authorizing. Everything to do with their problems has to do with appropriations spending, not authorization. The President made it clear that he will ``not fix defense without fixing nondefense spending.'' In this day of multiple crises around the world--as these crises and wars and conflicts and refugees unfold--the President's priority seems to be the funding mechanism, which has nothing to do with the defense authorization. Henry Kissinger, as well as many of our most respected national security leaders, has called it the most diverse and complex array of crises around the world since the end of World War II, and there are more refugees in the world than at any time since World War II. The President is threatening to veto this legislation, which contains vital authorities--not just authorities but the ability of our men and women who are serving in uniform to defend this Nation--so he can prove a political point. The President is threatening to veto this bill to defend the Nation in order to prove a political point. As I mentioned, the threats we confront today are far more serious than they were a year ago and significantly more so than when the Congress passed the Budget Control Act in 2011. That legislation arbitrarily capped defense spending and established the mindless mechanism of sequestration. As a result, with worldwide threats rising, we as a nation are on a course to cut nearly $1 trillion of defense spending over 10 years with no strategic or military rationale whatsoever for doing so. Every single military and national security leader who has testified before the Committee on Armed Services this year has denounced sequestration and urged its repeal as soon as possible. Indeed, each of our military service chiefs testified that continued defense spending at sequestration levels would put American lives at risk--I repeat: would put American lives at risk. Unfortunately, the Defense bill does not end sequestration. Believe me, if the Defense bill were capable of that, I would have done all in my power to make it happen. But the simple reality is that this legislation cannot end sequestration and it cannot fix the Budget Control Act. This legislation does not spend a dollar. It is not an appropriations bill; it is a policy bill. It provides the Department of Defense and our men and women in uniform with the authorities and support they need to defend the Nation. This legislation fully supports Presidents Obama's request of $612 billion for national defense. Let me repeat that. The legislation gives the President every dollar of budget authority he requested. Yet the President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are threatening to oppose this bill because it authorizes--not spends--$38 billion in funding for readiness and training of our troops in the overseas contingency operations, known as the OCO account. Democrats believe that by placing these funds in the OCO account, the legislation would minimize the harm sequestration would do to our military but fail to do the same for domestic spending programs. This complaint fails to understand a basic fact: The only legislation that can stop sequestration, whether for defense or nondefense, is an appropriations bill. In fact, Republicans and Democrats are engaged right now in negotiations to find a bipartisan budget deal that would provide sequestration relief. I hope they succeed. But the idea that the precise location in the NDAA of certain funds for our troops will have any impact on the substance or outcome of these negotiations is ludicrous. The choice we faced was between OCO money and no money. When I have asked senior military leaders before the Armed Services Committee which of those options they would choose, they have said they would take the OCO. So do I. With global threats rising, it simply makes no sense to oppose a defense policy bill--legislation that spends no money but is full of vital authorities that our troops need and need badly--for a reason that has nothing to do with national defense spending, and it certainly makes no sense when the negotiations that matter to fixing sequestration are happening right now. That is where the President and Senate Democrats should be focusing their energy, not on blocking the Defense bill and denying our men and women in uniform the authorities and support they need to defend the Nation. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. In fact, the White House has doubled down and vowed that the President will veto this legislation. So let's be clear. The President isn't threatening to veto because of the existence of an overseas contingency account, which the Pentagon has been using for years--for years--to fund everything from readiness and training for our troops to Israeli missile defense, all without a word of protest from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle or a veto threat from the President. This veto threat is about one thing and one thing only, and that is one word: politics. The President wants to take a stand for greater domestic spending, and he wants to use the vital authorities and support the men and women in uniform need to defend the Nation as leverage. At a time of increasing threats to our Nation, this is foolish, misguided, cynical, and dangerous. Vetoing this legislation will not solve the spending debate happening right now in Washington. That is something which can only be done through the appropriations process--not a defense authorization bill, not a defense policy bill. Vetoing the NDAA will not solve sequestration. Vetoing the NDAA will not solve the Budget Control Act. Rather than fixing the Budget Control Act, vetoing the NDAA would repeat its original sin by continuing the disturbing trend of holding our military men and women hostage to the whims of our dysfunctional politics. So let's be absolutely clear on what a vote against or a veto of this legislation really means. This is what it really means, my friends. If you say no, you will be saying no to urgent steps to address critical shortfalls in fighter aircraft across our military. You will block 12 F-18 Super Hornets for the Navy and 6 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps. If you say no, you will be saying no to $1 billion in accelerated Navy shipbuilding, including an additional Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. If you say no, you will be saying no to upgrades to Army combat vehicles deploying to Europe to deter Russian aggression against our allies. If you say no to this legislation, you will be saying no to $200 million to strengthen our cyber defenses as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea attack our government and our companies relentlessly and with impunity. If you say no to the NDAA, you will be saying no to significant steps to improve the quality of life of the men and women serving in the All- Volunteer Force and the needs of our wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers. If you say no to the NDAA, you will be saying no to over 30 special pays and bonuses that are vital to recruiting and retaining military doctors, nurses, nuclear engineers, and language experts. If you say no to the NDAA, you will be saying no to greater access to urgent care facilities for military families and steps taken in the bill to make military health care plans more portable. If you say no to the NDAA, you will be saying no to making it easier for our veterans to get the medicines they need. You will be saying no to the provision in this legislation that would ensure that servicemembers are able to get the same medicines for pain and other conditions when they transition from the Department of Defense to the Veterans' Administration. If you say no to the NDAA, you will be saying no to new steps to improve sexual assault prevention and response. You will be saying no to additional tools to enhance support of victims of sexual assault, including needed protections to end retaliation against those who report sex-related offenses or who intervene to support victims. You will be saying no to provisions that strengthen and protect the authority and independence of the special victims' counsel for sexual abuse. If you say no to the NDAA, you will be saying no to some of the most significant reforms to the Department of Defense in a generation. You will be saying no to the modernization of an outdated, 70-year-old military retirement system--a system that excludes 83 percent of all those who serve in the military from receiving any retirement assets whatsoever, including veterans of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of whom have served two, three, four tours of duty but left the military with nothing because they retired before reaching 20 years of service. If you say no to the NDAA, you will be saying no to a modern military retirement system that would extend better, more flexible retirement benefits to more than 80 percent of servicemembers; a system that would give servicemembers the choice to use a portion of their retirement benefits when they leave the military to help them transition to a new career, start a business, buy a home, or send their kids to college; a new system that not only improves life for our servicemembers and future retirees but does so while also saving the taxpayers $12 billion once it is fully implemented. If you say no to the NDAA, you will also be saying no to the most sweeping reforms to our defense acquisition system in 30 years. You will be saying no to reforms that are essential to preserving our military technological superiority as our adversaries develop and field more advanced weapons. You will be saying no to reforms that would hold Pentagon leaders more accountable for the decisions they make. You will be saying no to reforms that would improve the relationship between the Pentagon and our Nation's innovators, helping to ensure that our military can gain access to the most cutting-edge technologies. If you say no to the NDAA, you will be saying no to significant reforms to defense management. A ``no'' vote is a vote to stand in the way of important steps to reduce the amount of money the Department of Defense spends on bureaucracy and overhead, even as it cuts Army soldiers, Air Force fighter aircraft, and Navy ships. A ``no'' vote is also a vote to continue a backwards personnel system that judges our Pentagon's civilians not based on their talent but their time served. If you say no to the NDAA, you will squander a historic opportunity to ban torture once and for all, to achieve a reform that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--especially the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein--have sought for a decade or more: making the Army Field Manual the uniform interrogation standard for the entire U.S. Government. Voting no will squander an opportunity to stand up for the values that Americans have embraced for generations, while still enabling our interrogators to extract critical intelligence from our enemies. By vetoing legislation that bans torture forever, the President would be vetoing his own legacy. Worst of all, if you say no to the NDAA, you are saying no to vital authorities in support that our Armed Forces need to defend our Nation as we confront the most diverse and complex array of crises in over 70 years. As we speak, there are nearly 10,000 American troops in Afghanistan helping a new Afghan Government to secure the country and defeat our common terrorist enemies. But since President Obama hailed the end of combat operations in Afghanistan last year, ISIL has arrived on the battlefield and Taliban fighters have launched a major offensive to take territory across the country. So what message would it send if the President and some of my colleagues say no to $3.8 billion for the Afghan Security Forces to fight back against terrorists that wish to destroy the progress achieved at so costly a sacrifice? In the Asia-Pacific region, China's military buildup continues with a focus on countering and thwarting U.S. power projection. At the same time, China is asserting vast territorial claims in the East and South China Seas. Most recently, China has reclaimed nearly 3,000 acres of land in the South China Sea and is rapidly militarizing these features, building at least three airstrips to support military aircraft. With the addition of surface-to-air missiles and radars, these new land features could enable China to declare and enforce an air defense identification zone in the South China Sea and to hold that vital region at greater risk. Our allies and partners throughout the region are alarmed by China's behavior and are looking to the United States for leadership. So what message would it send if the President and some of my colleagues say no to $50 million to assist and train our allies in the region to increase maritime security in the maritime domain awareness in the South China Sea? Last year, Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea forced us to recognize that we are confronting a challenge that many had assumed was resigned to the history books--a strong, militarily-capable Russia that is hostile to our interests and our values and seeks to challenge the international order that American leaders of both parties have sought to maintain since the end of World War II. Russia continues to destabilize Ukraine and menace our NATO allies in Europe with aggressive military behavior. And now, in a profound echo of the Cold War, Mr. Putin has deployed troops and tanks and combat aircraft to Syria, and they are conducting operations as we speak to shore up the Assad regime--the Assad regime--which has slaughtered 240,000 of its citizens and driven millions into refugee status. And who are Mr. Putin's forces bombing most of all? ISIL? No. Moderate opposition groups backed, trained, and equipped by the United States of America. So what message would it send if the President and some of my colleagues say no to $300 million in security assistance for Ukraine to defend its sovereign territory, say no to $400 million in lethality upgrades to U.S. Army combat vehicles deploying to Europe to deter Russian aggression, and say no to $800 million for the President's own European Reassurance Initiative, which seeks to reassure allies of America's commitment to their security and the integrity of the NATO Alliance? In the Middle East, a terrorist army with tens of thousands of fighters has taken over a vast swath of territory and declared an Islamic State in the heart of one of the most strategically important parts of the world. Yet more than a year after the President declared that we would degrade and destroy ISIL, it appears that nothing we are currently doing is proving sufficient to achieve that strategic objective. The United States and our partners do not have the initiative. ISIL does, and it is capitalizing on our inadequate policy to maintain and enhance our initiative, as they have for the past 4 years. Indeed, the situation on the ground is now taking yet another dramatic turn for the worse, as several recent events have made clear. So what message would it send if the President and some of my colleagues say no to $1.1 billion of security assistance and cooperation for our allies in the region to help us fight ISIL? What message would it send to our ally Israel to say no to hundreds of millions of dollars of vital support for our common efforts in missile defense and countering terrorist tunnels? These capabilities are more important than ever for Israel and the United States in the wake of the President's nuclear agreement with Iran, and this legislation fully authorizes those programs. Saying no to the NDAA means saying no to this vital security cooperation with Israel. For 4 years, Bashar al-Assad has waged war on the Syrian people. The United States has stood idly by as well over 230,000 have been killed, 1 million injured, 8 million displaced, and 4 million forced to seek refuge abroad. The Syrian conflict has now created the largest refugee crisis in Europe since World War II. Now Russia has stepped in to prop up the murderous regime and kill more Syrians. With Syria descending deeper into chaos, and the world more unstable than ever, what message would it send if the Commander in Chief and some of my colleagues see this as a good time to say no to the National Defense Authorization Act? This is the same conclusion that some of the major military service organizations have also reached, and they have written open letters to the President urging him not to veto the NDAA. Their message should be heeded by all of my colleagues as we prepare to cast our votes. The Military Officers Association of America wrote: [T]he fact is that we are still a nation at war, and this legislation is vital to fulfilling wartime requirements. With multiple contentious issues remaining for Congress to tackle this year, and very little legislative time to complete those crucial actions, this is not the time to add the already extremely daunting burden of legislative challenges by vetoing the defense authorization bill. The Reserve Officers Association wrote: [The NDAA] contains crucial provisions for the military, nation's security, and the welfare of those who serve. [The Reserve Officers Association] has a membership of 50,000 former and currently serving officers and noncommissioned officers [and] represents all the uniformed services of the United States who would be favorably affected by your signing this bill into law. I also want to read from a recent Washington Post editorial: American Presidents rarely veto national defense authorization bills, since they are, well, vital to national security. . . . Refusing to sign this bill would make history, but not in a good way. Mr. Obama should let it become law and seek other sources of leverage in pursuing his legitimate goals for domestic sequestration relief. Time and again, President Obama has failed to do the right thing when it could matter most--in Afghanistan, in the Pacific, in Ukraine, in Iraq, and in Syria. Vetoing the NDAA would be yet another of these failures, and it would be reminiscent of a bygone day, when the fecklessness of those days were so accurately described by Winston Churchill. On the floor of the House of Commons, he said: When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure. There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the sibylline books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self- preservation strikes its jarring gong--these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history. My colleagues, for 53 years Congress has passed a National Defense Authorization Act, and at perhaps no time in the past half century has this legislation been more important. Everywhere we look around the world there are reminders of exactly why we need this National Defense Authorization Act. I understand the deeply held beliefs of many of my colleagues about the spending issues that have divided the Congress for the last 4 years. But this is not a spending bill. It is a policy bill. It is a reform bill. It is a bill that accomplishes what the Constitution demands of us and what the American people expect of us. It is a bill that gives our men and women in uniform, many of whom are still in harm's way around the world today, the vital authorities and support they need to defend our Nation. And it is a bill that deserves the support of the Senate. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. No. I assure the Senator from California that this is not the case and that I would not have agreed to any such provision if it were. The conferees decided that the requirement that all U.S. interrogations be conducted in accordance with the Army Field Manual on interrogations should not apply to Federal law enforcement officials for two simple, straightforward reasons. First, Federal law enforcement agencies already have an extensive and well-established set of rules and procedures concerning interrogations because law enforcement interrogations are by definition conducted to produce statements that are voluntary and admissible in court. Those rules and procedures strictly prohibit the use of coercive techniques. Second, the U.S. Army Field Manual was not written with law enforcement circumstances in mind, and it is unnecessary to ask law enforcement agencies to use or adapt the Army Field Manual when they already have their own rules and procedures for noncoercive interrogations. Since at least 2004, it has been the policy of the FBI that ``no attempt be made to obtain a statement by force, threats, or promises,'' according to the Legal Handbook for FBI Special Agents, as publicly recounted by the FBI general counsel in July 24, 2004, congressional testimony. This and other such rules and applicable restrictions are unaffected by this provision. In short, we did not ``open the door'' to coercive techniques by law enforcement in any way. We left the existing law enforcement rules under current law and Executive order in place. Indeed, as the joint explanatory statement of managers in this conference report states: ``The conferees recognize that law enforcement personnel may continue to use authorized non-coercive techniques of interrogation, and that Army Field Manual 2-22.3 is designed to reflect best practices for interrogation to elicit reliable statements.'' Also, it should go without saying that the exemption for ``Federal law enforcement entities'' does not apply to the Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, and the like, but rather includes entities like the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security, as specified. It is false to suggest that the conferees in any way agreed to allow the use of coercive interrogations by law enforcement agencies. We have banned coercive interrogations because they are a stain on our national character, ineffective, and counterproductive to our foreign policy goals. I did not work for more than a decade to preclude coercive interrogations only to agree to permit them so long as they are carried out by a different set of agencies. I did not, and this provision does no such thing. The rules and strictures on coercive interrogations by Federal law enforcement agencies are completely unaffected by this provision. I say that as the coauthor of the Senate amendment and as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who negotiated the agreement on the final language.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator for the question. There was a concern among the conferees that the Senate provision would not allow adequate time for the mandatory review, especially given the broadening of the application of the Army Field Manual to the rest of government. In light of this change, and the importance of the review, the conferees decided that 3 years was a more appropriate timeline. I would also like to clarify one point, as there has been some confusion. It has been pointed out that the conference report requires the mandatory review of the Army Field Manual to be completed ``not sooner than'' 3 years from the date of enactment. This should not be read as allowing the review to be done far in excess of 3 years or potentially not at all. This language appears under the heading ``Requirement to Update,'' and it is the conferees' view that this review must be completed on or shortly after 3 years from the date of enactment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1735, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say with respect to the Senator from Illinois, he just authenticated an old saying: ``Talk is cheap.'' This is really one of the more remarkable performances by the other side. We are talking about legislation that is vital to the welfare of the men and women who are serving in uniform, yet the Senator from Illinois says we shouldn't take care of them because he has another problem. That is a logic which defies anything I have observed in a long time. This is an authorization bill. It has nothing to do with the appropriations process and the money that needs to be spent or not spent on any kind of mechanism. The Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Nevada, the Democratic leader, keep talking about the fact that the budget passed by the Budget Committee by a majority vote here in the U.S. Senate calls for additional funding for defense. So now, in direct contravention to that, my friends on the other side of the aisle object to that provision in the Budget Act and will now oppose legislation that authorizes a pay raise for our troops, authorizes special pay and bonuses to support recruitment and retention, makes health care more affordable, increases access to urgent care for families, and knocks down bureaucratic obstacles to ensure servicemembers maintain access to the medicines they need as they transition from Active Duty. There are literally tens if not hundreds of provisions that take care of the men and women who are serving in our military. So what do my friends on the other side say? Turn this down because they don't like the way it is funded. The fight is on the appropriations, my friends, not on the authorization that defends this Nation. To do this kind of disservice to the men and women who are serving in uniform is a disgrace. Please don't say that you support the men and women in the military, come to this floor and say that, and then vote no on this legislation. Don't do it. Any objective observer will tell us that the provisions in this bill are for the benefit of the men and women who are serving in an all-volunteer force. The Senator from Illinois wants a ``better deal.'' I want a better deal. I am tired of our providing funds for the military on a year-to- year ad hoc basis. I don't like it. I hate sequestration. I think sequestration risks doing permanent damage to our ability to face this Nation at a time when there are more crises in the world than at any time since World War II--when there is a flood of refugees, when the Chinese are moving into the Spratly Islands, endangering the world's most important avenue of commerce, while Vladimir Putin dismembers Russia. And my colleagues from the other side of the aisle are now complaining that they didn't like the way it was funded. I will tell my colleagues, this is a remarkable time. So apparently the President of the United States--and we will talk about it later-- who has just shown his remarkable leadership with the insertion of Russia into Syria, which he did not find out about from his meeting with Vladimir Putin of 90 minutes, and which his Secretary of State has said is an opportunity, and which his Secretary of Defense said was ``unprofessional''--they are now slaughtering--slaughtering--young men whom we trained outside of Syria and sent into Syria to fight against ISIS and Bashar Assad, and the Russians are dropping bombs on them. It is an incredible situation. There has never been a greater need to authorize and fund our military--which is facing more challenges since the end of World War II--than today, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will urge a ``no'' vote. They will urge a ``no'' vote for the first time in 53 years on an overall--not a specific issue but on a broad issue of the budget. My friends want to turn down our authorization and our responsibilities to the men and women who are serving in the military. I urge my colleagues to rethink their misguided logic. Attack the appropriations bill. Let's all sit down and try to negotiate an agreement that takes care of all of these other aspects of our government, but let's not do this to the men and women who are serving. Let's not prevent us from improving their quality of life. Let's not prevent them from having a pay raise. Let's not prevent them from having the medical care they need. Let's not do these things in the name of a budgetary fight. Mr. President, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the motion to invoke cloture and on adoption of the conference report when the time comes. I will be speaking a lot more about it between now, if we approve the cloture motion, and when we vote on the conference report. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this Friday, October 2, 2015, the U.S. Naval Academy will honor ADM Charles R. Larson, class of 1958, by naming the administration building in his honor. Coming just a week before the Naval Academy celebrates its 170th anniversary, this is fitting tribute to man who has made such immeasurable contributions to this fine institution. Chuck Larson grew up thousands of miles from the nearest ocean. However, the calling of the sea brought him to Annapolis and the start of a career dedicated to the service of this great Nation. It was at the Academy where I had the distinct pleasure of getting to know this great man. Chuck's Academy experience was somewhat different than mine, where he would go on to become the brigade commander, president of the class of 1958, and graduate near the top of the class. I finished some distance behind that mark. Even though our paths were different, I cherished our friendship forged in those shared Academy experiences, a friendship that would last a lifetime. After graduation in the summer of 1958, Chuck would continue his exemplary career, eventually attaining the rank of admiral. He has led at every level from command at sea to theater command, as commander of the 2nd Fleet, a Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, commander of the Pacific Fleet, and finally as the commander of United States Pacific Command. Impressive as this resume was, the two jobs Chuck cherished most were his two tours as the Superintendent of the Naval Academy. As the only two-time Superintendent of the Academy in its 170-year history, Chuck left an indelible mark on the institution he so loved. Returning from retirement in 1994 to lead the Academy after serious problems left the institution with an uncertain future, Chuck focused on character development and fundamental leadership training to return to the founding principles of the Academy. In 4 years, he returned the institution to greatness and, in the process, trained the officers that would become the leaders in the fight against terrorism that would define a generation. As a result of Chuck's tireless efforts and the lasting initiatives he put in place, today the Naval Academy consistently ranks among the top schools in the Nation. His legacy of service to the Academy and the Nation will be felt in the decades to come as graduates from the institution become leaders in the military, government, and corporate venues. I can think of no better way to honor the legacy of Chuck's service than with the rededication of the administration building as Larson Hall. It will stand as an ever present reminder to the dedication and the ideals of great naval officer, leader, and dear friend.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Prudent Planning or Wasteful Binge? A Look at End of the Year Spending.''

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of the Army Corps of Engineers' Participation in the Development of the New Regulatory Definition of ``Waters of the United States.''

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2015, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation.''

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2015, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Pension Advances: Legitimate Loans or Shady Schemes.''

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-224 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2015, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Economic Crisis on Ukraine.''

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``A Review of the Department of Education and Student Achievement.''

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 may speak as in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we now have information that the Russians have now launched airstrikes in Syria, ostensibly against ISIS. In reality, it is not clear. In fact, there is information that some of those strikes were at Homs, and the latest information is that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports that at least 27 people were killed, and that 6 children were among the dead. These strikes near the city of Homs, which is not under control of ISIS, of the Islamic State--so already we are seeing the true intentions of Vladimir Putin, which are to maintain a strong position in Syria, his foothold in the Middle East, and his propping up of Bashar Assad--Bashar Assad, who has killed at least 250,000 of his own citizens through the horrible process of barrel bombing and has driven millions into refugee status with the full and complete support of Iran and Vladimir Putin. I say to my colleagues, over the past 6\1/2\ years President Obama has sounded retreat across the Middle East. In fact, it was 1 year ago at this time when the President of the United States said: Our strategy is to degrade and destroy ISIS. A report yesterday said some 28,000 Europeans and some Americans have come into the fight on the side of ISIS. Mosul and Ramadi remain in the hands of ISIS. Of course, the continued advances of ISIS in Syria are well known. In short, a year after the President made that statement, there is no strategy, and there is no success. In fact, we now see the results of this failure, which is a flood of refugees out of Syria and Iraq because they have given up hope of ever returning to their homeland. Our hearts go out to those who are victims and have had to flee their homeland. We see these refugees. It breaks our hearts when we see a little baby's body washed up on the beach. It did not have to happen. It did not have to happen. Everybody knows that when the President of the United States said that we have drawn a redline in Syria and did not do it, it had a profound effect on the Middle East, including Sunni Arab States, as well as Shia. Everybody knows that when the President turned down the recommendations of his Secretary of Defense, his Secretary of State, which happened to be Secretary Clinton at the time, and his Secretary of Defense, to arm the Free Syrian Army--and he turned it down--that was another seminal moment. This is a series of decisions or nondecisions which has led to the situation we see today, where Vladimir Putin may have inserted Russia into the Middle East in a way that Russia has not enjoyed since 1973 when Anwar Sadat threw the Russians out of Egypt. He is still on course to repeat this nightmare by withdrawing nearly all U.S. forces from Afghanistan as well. As we see in the last couple of days, the Taliban is capturing the strategic city of Kunduz. That is terrible in the respect that Kunduz is in the northern part of Afghanistan, where it was believed it was fairly stable, showing the ability of the Taliban and the effects of our withdrawal. But I come back to Syria and the Russian activities today. After 4 years in Syria, the United States has stood by as Bashar Assad with his war on the Syrian people goes on and on and on. It is this slaughter that has been the single greatest contributor to the rise and continued success of ISIL. Have no doubt, it was Bashar Assad that gave birth to ISIL. The President has said for years--for years--that Assad must go. But he has done nothing that has brought us any closer to achieving that outcome. My friends, it is not that we have done nothing, but we have not done anything that would reverse the trend and in any way further the goal that the President articulated a year ago--that we would degrade and destroy ISIL. In short, this administration has confused our friends, encouraged our enemies, mistaken an excess of caution for prudence, and replaced the risks of action with the perils of inaction. Into the wreckage-- into the wreckage of this administration's Middle East policy--has now stepped Vladimir Putin. As in Ukraine, as elsewhere, he perceives the administration's inaction and caution as weakness, and he is taking full advantage. Over the past few weeks, Vladimir Putin has been engaged in a significant military buildup in western Syria, deploying strike aircraft--by the way, he is also deploying aircraft that are air-to- air, not air-to-ground; my friends, ISIS has no air force--significant buildup of bombers, tanks, artillery, Russian military personnel. Meanwhile, our Secretary of State calls Lavrov frantically and asks him what is going on--not once, not twice, three times. My friends, it is obvious what Vladimir Putin is doing. These airstrikes are a logical follow-on to his ambition, which he is realizing to, one, play a major role in Syria, preserve the port of Latakia, prop up Bashar Assad, and play a major role in the Middle East. All of this is not lost on countries in the region. Today Vladimir Putin escalated his involvement as Russian pilots carried out their first airstrikes in Syria. Initial reports, as I mentioned, are that they are hitting targets that are not controlled by ISIL. That should fool no one because Vladimir Putin's primary authority and responsibility and ambition are to prop up Bashar Assad against all of his enemies. The White House has said: ``It's unclear exactly what Russia's intentions are.'' My friends, I am not making that up. The White House has said: ``It's unclear exactly what Russia's intentions are.'' If the White House is confused about Putin's intentions and plans in Syria, then the United States is in even worse trouble than many fear because it is not hard to discern what Vladimir Putin wants. In fact, from Russia's military buildup in Syria to its recently announced military and intelligence coalition with Syria, Iran, and Iraq--remember, Iraq is the country where we lost thousands of American lives. Now, the Iraqi Government announces sharing intelligence with Syria and Iran--amazing, amazing. Putin's ambitions are blindingly obvious, my friends. He wants to prop up Assad, play kingmaker in any transition, undermine U.S. policy and operations, and ultimately expand Russian power in the Middle East to a degree, as I mentioned, unseen since 1973. This week at the United Nations, President Obama said: ``The United States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran,'' to resolve the Syrian conflict. It requires self-delusion of tremendous scale to believe that Russia and Iran have any interest in resolving the Syrian conflict. They seek only to keep the murderous Assad regime in power. Russia's intervention in Syria will prolong and complicate this horrific war. The main beneficiary will be ISIL, which has fed off the ethnic and sectarian divisions fostered by the Assad regime. It is tragic. It is tragic, my fellow Americans, that we have reached this point. It is a Syrian conflict that has killed more than 200,000 people, created the worst refugee crisis in Europe since World War II, spawned a terrorist army of tens of thousands, and now created a platform for a Russian autocrat to join with an Iranian theocrat to prop up a Syrian dictator. It did not have to be this way. But this is the inevitable consequence of hollow words, redlines crossed, tarnished moral influence, leading from behind, and a total lack of American leadership. My friends, today in the Washington Post there is an article by David Ignatius, who quotes Ryan Crocker, one of the greatest diplomats I have ever had the honor and privilege to know. The article says: ``Russia has played a horrible hand brilliantly. We folded what could have been a pretty good hand,'' argues Ryan Crocker, a retired U.S. diplomat who has served in nearly every hot spot in the Middle East and is among the nation's wisest analysts of the region. ``The Russians were able to turn a defensive position into an offensive one because we were so completely absent.'' Ryan Crocker is right. I would also remind my friends that because of American inaction, the countries in the region are making their own accommodations. Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar have all been to Russia for arms deals. The Saudi Arabians have bought $17 billion worth of weapons from Russia; UAE, $7 billion; Qatar, $5 billion. Would that have ever happened 10 years ago? Of course not. But they see America leaving, and they are accommodating. And we have, of course, refused in many respects to give the kinds of weapons particularly that the Kurds need. I won't go on too much longer. I will summarize by saying that this is a very sad day for America and the world. The world is watching. It is not confined to the Middle East. We see Vladimir Putin continue to dismember Ukraine, and now some phony separatist elections are going to be held in the area he now controls. The Chinese leader made some nice comments about how they would stop the hacking that allowed them to compromise our most important industrial, military, and other secrets. We will see if that happens, but they are also continuing their expansion in the islands in the South China Sea. An absence of American leadership is very visible and very understood by nations throughout the world. Today we see Vladimir Putin attacking with his airplanes not just ISIS but others who are enemies of Bashar al-Assad. I would like to add that these airstrikes are indiscriminate in nature, and there has been no attempt whatsoever to stop the horrible barrel bombing, as GEN David Petraeus recommended before the Armed Services Committee just a few days ago. So this is a bad day, and it is time for American leadership. It is time that President Obama woke up to the realities in the world and reassert American leadership. That does not mean we are going to send thousands of ground troops back into Iraq or Syria, but it does mean that we develop a policy. I am told that these bombings--that the American Government had said that American planes should not fly and that we have somehow approved of these airstrikes. I do not know if that is true. I hope that is not true. What we should be saying to Vladimir Putin is ``You fly, but we fly anywhere we want to when and how we want to, and you had better stay out of the way.'' That is the message that should be sent to Vladimir Putin. So I hope the American people understand how serious this is and that this rogue dictator named Vladimir Putin, who is a thug and a bully, can only understand a steadfast and strong American policy that brings America's strength back to bear. We are still the strongest Nation in the world. Now it is time for us to act like it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge and commend the leadership at Arizona State University, ASU, for the establishment of the ASU Public Service Academy, which this fall opened its doors to student leaders who aspire to effect a positive change within our country and around the globe through public service. I am pleased to see ASU's recognition of the importance of civilian and military national service in the development of a sense of citizenship among our country's future leaders. I also want to acknowledge the benevolence of ASU president Michael Crow and his wife Sybil Francis whose contributions will help transform the vision of the Public Service Academy into a reality. In closing, Mr. President, I again want to commend the leadership at ASU for their commitment to public service and to the State of Arizona, and I look forward to witnessing the future contributions of the Public Service Academy. Thank you.