John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the Senator from Alaska be recognized.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I was proud and honored to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, offered by my dear friend and leader, Senator Graham of South Carolina. Nearly 17 years ago to this day, I came to the Senate floor to cast a vote to override then-President Clinton's veto of the Federal partial- birth abortion ban and to speak out for the voiceless unborn children who were victims of that deplorable practice. As supporters of that effort to end partial-birth abortions in the United States will recall, it was a long journey to see legislation finally signed into law in 2003 but a journey fully consistent with America's long commitment to the rights and dignity of all human life. Enacting that legislation called upon our Nation's moral conscience in the same way our country is compelled to action in the face of injustice at home and abroad, and I believe we as a nation are better off for it today. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act the Senate considered today is no different. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation to protect the lives of unborn children by banning abortions beyond the time when a child in the womb can feel pain. My support for this bill is a continuation of my longstanding and unequivocal pro-life record since I was first elected to the Senate. As was the case when the Senate considered the ban on partial-birth abortion, we have to recognize that the bill the Senate voted on today does not fit neatly into the traditional debate about whether you are pro-life or pro-choice. The bill is about banning the extreme practice of late-term abortions and protecting the lives of fully formed human beings who can feel real pain. These abortions occur at the beginning of the sixth month of pregnancy. They end the life of a human being who has been found worthy of fetal anesthesia to dull the pain the procedure causes but somehow unworthy of life. I submit that to oppose this bill, to vote to allow this practice to continue to be legal in this country, is extreme and unconscionable. This effort puts us on the right side of the American people and the right side of history. This legislation has 45 cosponsors in the Senate, and it passed the House by a vote of 242 to 184 in May of this year. A recent poll found that 64 percent of Americans support restricting late-term abortions. I am proudly pro-life because I believe this is a human rights issue inextricably tied to the values of our Nation. These are the same values that have resulted in a long-held American commitment to fighting for human rights and for the disadvantaged and the voiceless around the world. The same commitment to fighting for human life must be true in our Nation today for unborn children. In April 2014, Time magazine ran a story called ``A Preemie Revolution: Cutting-edge medicine and dedicated caregivers are helping the tiniest babies survive--and thrive.'' The article discussed remarkable medical advancements that have resulted in a steadily decreasing age of viability for infants born prematurely. It details the complexities of caring for premature babies, the challenge of seeing to things as basic as breathing for these babies, as well as the ``round-the-clock SWAT team of nearly 300 [medical professionals]'' that come together at neonatal intensive care units, NICU, to fight for these tiny lives. In the author's words: [I]n some ways, the work of a NICU will always seem like an exercise in disproportion--an army of people and a mountain of infrastructure caring for a pound of life. But it's a disproportion that speaks very well of us. The painstaking fight for human life that goes on in NICUs around the country is irreconcilable with the current status quo in our Federal law that permits late-term abortions. As we know, what is at stake in this debate is made all the more real and urgent by the heinous video footage showing Planned Parenthood's role in the harvesting of unborn babies' body parts. I was proud to vote in support of defunding Planned Parenthood while preserving Federal funding for women's health services in facilities such as community health centers. I urge my colleagues to consider the significance of this vote today, the reality of the practice that this bill is aimed at prohibiting, and what permitting late-term abortions says about our Nation's commitment to fighting for life and standing up for human rights when our conscience calls us to. I deeply regret that this body failed today to vote for the voiceless and ban late-term abortions and protect life. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider their position on this important issue. I yield the floor.

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, I rise today to recognize a true American patriot, a fellow naval aviator, and a close personal friend, former Secretary of Navy, the Honorable John F. Lehman. Secretary Lehman served his country for over 30 years both in uniform in the United States Navy and as Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan Administration, from 1981-1987. His leadership and dedication to our country and to the Navy set a high mark unsurpassed to this day. It was Secretary Lehman who championed a ``600-ship'' Navy after the devastating post-Vietnam war cutbacks. He knew how important this naval investment was to rebuilding our global military and strategic power. Together with President Reagan, he offered the vision of strength that would ultimately bring an end to the Soviet Union. His tenure stands as a lesson of history that peace comes through strength and commitment, not weakness and retreat. Secretary Lehman's impact on the country and our national security has not ended with the conclusion of his tour in the Pentagon. He continues to offer essential and trusted advice to decision makers throughout our national leadership. I am proud to call Secretary Lehman my friend, and I am honored to recognize him today. For these and many other reasons, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the citation in honor of Secretary Lehman's recently awarded National Defense Industrial Association Gold Medal.

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 to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, a few hours from now the Senate will vote again on the Iranian deal. I think it is pretty well known that no votes will change. It is very unfortunate that that is the case. But it will give our colleagues, hopefully--they may have contemplated how bad a deal this is and possibly change, but obviously we know the likelihood of that is unlikely. The virtues of this legislation have been emphasized by my friends on the other side of the aisle. Those of us who have grave and serious concerns have also been articulated. But I think it is well to point out that this will be the first major agreement or treaty in history that is voted on on strict party lines. Not one single Senator on this side of the aisle will be voting in favor--not one--a degree of partisanship concerning an issue of the greatest importance, in my view, of any treaty or agreement since that agreement Neville Chamberlain made with Adolph Hitler in Munich in 1938. So that part of it, in my view, is a failure on the part of the President of the United States. I know many of us, including myself, were willing to listen and consider any agreement that was verifiable and enforceable that would have prevented the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons. In fact, it was stated by the Secretary of State that the object of this agreement was that Iran would never have nuclear capability. Now we all know it is a matter of time. Whether it is 1 month or 10 years or 15 years, whatever, we don't know. They notoriously cheat. That is one thing we do know. So the fact is that we went from preventing Iran from having a nuclear capability--and they came to the table not because of renewed zeal for that but because their economy was so badly hurt because of the sanctions which had been imposed on them and which after this deal can never be reimposed. Let's be frank and candid with our colleagues and with the American people. So here we are faced with an agreement that should have been a treaty. I know of no observers of the Constitution, both known as liberal interpreters and conservatives, who interpret the Constitution who agree that this is anything but a treaty of transcendent importance, and we, of course, are treating it as an ``agreement.'' Well, the bad news, I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who will be voting for this, is the next President of the United States can repeal this, can negate it. That would not have been the case if it was a treaty because then it would have been ratified by the Constitution and the Congress, specifically the Senate. So, in the short term, apparently the President and his minions have succeeded. In the long term, this will cause a grave threat to the security of the United States of America. I say to my colleagues, you know, this is an agreement that we are discussing, and I will talk about the failings of it as I see them, but far more importantly, the President of the United States and the Secretary of State treat this as if it were in a vacuum. It is not in a vacuum. You cannot consider this agreement unless you look at what is happening in the entire world today. Refugee Crisis and American Leadership Mr. President, according to anyone who is an expert on national security, including people such as Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Brent Scowcroft, and the list goes on and on, the world has never been in more turmoil than it is today. That does not take a great deal of intelligence or study; all you have to do is watch television or read a newspaper. The United Nations head of refugees has said: There have never been more refugees in the world since World War II than there are today. You can't turn on the television without seeing the terrible plight of these refugees who have had to flee their country because of the brutality and genocide committed by Bashar Assad. You can't do that without seeing it. Some in the media and some of my friends on the liberal side treat this as if it were a hurricane, an earthquake, a natural disaster that just sort of happened. It did not just happen, and it did not have to happen. What has happened with these refugees is a direct result of the failed, feckless policies of this administration in general and this President in particular. This is the President of the United States who overruled his national security team when they said that we should arm and equip and train the Free Syrian Army to go in there and fight against Bashar Assad. This is the same President who said: It is not a matter of when, it is a matter of whether Bashar Assad leaves office. This is the same President of the United States who announced to the world that Bashar Assad had crossed the redline and we were going to retaliate--only, of course, to hear that the President decided not to. I tell my colleagues, you cannot overstate the impact the President's decision had after he warned Bashar Assad, after he said that if they crossed the redline we would act and we did not. I am not sure many Americans are aware that the Saudis had aircraft on the runways ready to join in those attacks and they found out on CNN. Is it an accident that we have seen the Saudis visiting Moscow? Is it an accident that for the first time in its history we see the Saudis buying Russian equipment? Is it astonishing to our colleagues and friends that the Saudis have taken it upon themselves, along with UAE and other Gulf States, to intervene in Yemen against the Houthis, who are Iranian- backed, Iranian-trained, Iranian-equipped? No, it is not an accident. None of these things have happened by accident. Now we see a nation called Syria with over 230,000 killed and millions in refugee status. The surrounding countries, particularly the small ones, particularly Jordan and Lebanon, are literally overwhelmed with refugees. Today, I tell my colleagues, there are more Syrian children in school in Lebanon than there are Lebanese children in Lebanon. When you look at the size of the influx of the refugees into those two countries, some wonder in some ways how they have maintained their stability. All of it did not have to happen. It did not have to happen. The President of the United States decided to withdraw every single one of our combat troops in Iraq, saying at the time: We are leaving a prosperous, free, democratic Iraq. Does anybody believe that? Of course, so many of us argued: Please, leave a sustaining force behind-- which they could have. Anyone who says we couldn't have is lying. I don't use that word casually because Lindsey Graham and John McCain were in Baghdad when Maliki said: OK. He said: OK. I will keep troops. I will keep American troops. How many? How many and what mission? That answer never came from this administration until the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that it was down to 3,500--in his words, it cascaded down to 3,500. So now here we are with the greatest humanitarian crisis, again, since World War II, 70 years ago. Here we are with this situation, and Americans' hearts are going out to these people. Can any of us who saw the picture of the drowned little baby on the beach ever forget that? It did not have to happen. It was because this President and this administration and its minions refused to exercise American leadership when we refused to arm and equip and train the Free Syrian Army, overruling his then-Secretary of Defense, Panetta; overruling his then- Secretary of State, Clinton; overruling his Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, GEN David Petraeus. It is well known that they all recommended arming the Free Syrian Army. At that time, Bashar Assad was in serious jeopardy. So what happened? The Iranians--the same Iranians we are concluding this deal with--called in 5,000 Hezbollah, had Soleimani in charge of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard while tens of thousands have been slaughtered-- well, 230,000 is one estimate--with barrel bombing. Do you know what barrel bombing is? It is a huge cylinder. It is filled with explosives and shrapnel. They drop it. It explodes, and it spreads shrapnel everywhere. It is a terrible weapon. It is a terrible weapon. Bashar Assad has been using it continuously. Who is giving him that stuff to use? The Iranians. The Iranians are the ones who are doing it. It is the Iranians who are supporting the Shiite militias in Baghdad. It is the Iranians who are supporting the Houthis, who have taken over a great part of Yemen and would have taken over all of it if it had been up to us as we sat by and watched. The Saudis and UAE have decided to go in because they could not afford to have--look at where Yemen is on the map--they could not afford to have Yemen under the control of the Iranians. So here we are. So here we are. Now the news of the last few days is--guess what. The Russians are now building bases--a serious military buildup in Syria. Why? Because they have to prop up Bashar al-Assad. This misguided, delusional administration thinks that only they can attack ISIS and not attack Bashar al-Assad and his killing machine. My friends, in the name of human decency, in the name of the tradition of the United States of America helping those who are being slaughtered, we should tell Bashar al-Assad: You cannot fly those helicopters and those planes anymore and drop these terrible weapons. We are going to shoot you down if you do it. We are going to establish a free--safe zone on the Turkish border. We are going to have the refugees go there, and we are going to feed them, we are going to clothe them, and we are going to take care of them. And don't you fly an airplane over here or we are going to shoot it down. That is the message we should have to Bashar al-Assad. And now, what is happening now? The Russians have decided they are going to intervene militarily on the side of Bashar al-Assad. Now, my friends, it has been Vladimir Putin's practice and ambition to expand the ``near abroad.'' That means moving into Ukraine, taking Crimea in violation of the Budapest agreement, it means putting huge pressure on the Baltics, and it means propaganda campaigns and other pressures that are even on countries such as Sweden and Norway in the Arctic. All these things Vladimir Putin is doing is sort of an expanding influence from Russia. Now, my dear friends, you see him leapfrogging over to Syria to maintain his base on the Mediterranean and that is a somewhat radical departure. But not to worry, my friends, the Secretary of State called the Foreign Minister, Lavrov--the old Stalinite apparatchik that he is--and expressed his concern. So the American Government expressed their concern. Well, that ought to pretty well take care of it. Meanwhile, what about China? In the last day or two, there was a meeting, and a Chinese admiral, sitting between an American admiral and another admiral, stated: ``The South China Sea belongs to China.'' A few days ago, the President of the United States went to Alaska to rename a mountain. I guess that is a reason for a trip. I will leave that to others to judge. So he goes to Alaska and guess what happened. By coincidence--by sheer coincidence--for the first time in history, five Chinese warships showed up off the coast of Alaska, penetrating the 12-mile zone--the first time in history. Now, I am sure that was just a coincidence that the President of the United States happened to be in Alaska at the time that these Chinese ships showed up off the coast of Alaska. Every time we turn around, we are seeing nations react to a lack of American leadership. And so we are going to, of course, now vote--not to approve this agreement, because if it was a straight up-or-down vote, it would be a disapproval. It would be a significant disapproval, as a matter of fact--just not 60. I believe it is 57 or 58 Senators who will vote that they do not want to have the sanctions relieved that have been imposed by the Congress. It is a sad day. It is a sad day. Just as briefly as possible-- because we have been over all of these before--there is no doubt there are almost no enforcement and verification procedures. In fact, again, this is for the first time I think that the Senate of the United States is being asked to approve of an arms control agreement--which is basically what this is when you get right down to it--without knowing the verification procedures. It is a deal between the IAEA and Iran. I still don't get it how anybody can support an agreement that we don't know the most vital elements of. That is still beyond me. Obviously, in the place where we found most of--some of their real secret activity buried in a mountain, that inspection will be conducted by the Iranians themselves. Remarkable. Of course, the past nuclear activities, so-called PMD, one of the requirements--one of the interesting aspects of this is to see what was said at the time in the beginning and what actually happened, such as the Secretary of State saying: We must know what their previous military activities were. We must know that because otherwise we cannot--guess what. We are not going to know that. Particularly, though, the aspect of verification bothers me about as much as anything else. So now we have the Iranian Revolutionary Guard sustaining the Shia militias in Iraq. We have the Iranians funding Hezbollah, which is now the major problem for the Bashar al-Assad regime. We now have the Iranians supporting the Houthis, who, as I mentioned, are trained and equipped by the Iranians in an attempt to take over Yemen. The Iranians are now providing weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan. If they are doing all those things, and they are not changing their behavior, what in the world do you think they are going to do with $100 billion? Spend it on growing poppy, maybe building a YMCA? Of course not. They are going to continue their activities of supporting terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East with another $100 billion. This is what troubles me more than anything else. Has anyone in this body seen any indication of a change in Iranian behavior? If so, I would be more than eager to grasp that straw because everything I have seen--and the statements in just as short a time as 2 or 3 days ago--the grand Ayatollah says in 25 years Israel will no longer exist. Is that the background, is that the atmosphere of some kind of agreement of this nature, where they are going to get $100 billion? It is confounding, and it can only be explained by this incredible delusion on the part of the President and the Secretary of State--whom he has had for the last 6\1/2\ years--that if we somehow get an agreement with the Iranians, there will be an arrangement in the Middle East, and Iran and the United States will be partners against radical Islam--yada, yada, yada. That is impossible in light of Iranians' stated ambitions, and of course the Israelis--of course the Israelis are deeply disturbed. All I can say is this is not a good day. This is not a good day. This is a day when votes are taken--again, for the second time--on one of the most impactful situations in the history of this country post-World War II; that is, that this agreement will allow the Iranians, to a degree of latitude and a degree of capability, to spread their terror and their acts of terror throughout the Middle East in a far more effective fashion. Yes, we are war weary. Yes, Americans don't want to be involved. Yes, we know all of those things, even though it is 1 percent of the American population who actually serves in the military, but the fact is that sooner or later, as a result of this, the United States of America, unfortunately, will have to be engaged militarily. I hate to make that prediction, but I have been a student of what is going on in the Middle East for a long period of time. I have seen Iranian behavior, and I have watched what they have done--not just the rhetoric but their behavior. They are propping up a guy who has killed 230,000 of his country's men and women and driven millions into exile. Now we are feeling the effects of it in Europe and soon in the United States of America. It is shameful--it is shameful--that we allowed this guy to slaughter so many hundreds of thousands of people. And who supported them, who backed them, and who bailed them out when the President of the United States said: Oh, it is not a matter of whether Bashar al-Assad leaves, it is a matter of when. The President of the United States said: It is time for Bashar al-Assad to leave. Bashar al-Assad will be in office after this President of the United States. So it is not a good day. There have been other times in our country--there was a good book that was written about America before World War II called ``While America Slept.'' There was another great book by a professor at Texas A&M about how unready we were prior to the Korean conflict. We thought we were never going to be in another war, and we were totally unprepared when North Korea attacked South Korea. Now here we are--with blame on both sides of the aisle--continuing to cut our military, continuing to reduce our capabilities, and continuing to reach a point where the retiring Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army says we can no longer adequately defend the Nation against some of its threats, and, to cap it off, we are now going to see an agreement which will unleash the furies of Hell. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last night I was honored to pay tribute to a dear friend and personal hero, the late Boris Nemtsov. Boris Nemtsov was the Russian opposition leader, former Deputy Prime Minister, and human rights activist who was murdered in February. I ask unanimous consent to have my remarks printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again, I say to the Senator from Illinois that the usual way I have seen around here for many years is one side will speak, and then the other side will make their argument. If the Senator from Illinois wants to stack up all of his time on that side so there is no back and forth, I don't think that is the intent of what we are trying to achieve here.

Mr. McCAIN. We have been in since 2:15 p.m.

Mr. McCAIN. I know their schedules are very crowded, but I would hope that maybe one of them could wander over and speak. This is a fairly important issue.

Mr. McCAIN. Prepared to speak at this moment? I yield to whichever Senator on the other side wishes to speak.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the majority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, for conducting the debate on this agreement with the seriousness and gravity it deserves. In doing so, he has acted in the best traditions of the Senate, and I thank him for it. I wish to also thank my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who I believe just gave a very eloquent presentation of the situation as we are debating today. Today begins the culmination of a monumental debate that our Nation has conducted for the past 3 months. This debate is not about whether we support diplomatic solutions to international challenges or whether we are willing to negotiate with the Iranian regime or whether we should go to war with Iran. That is not what this debate is about, despite the President's sad, partisan attempts to make it so. It is always preferable to solve international problems without resorting to military force, but the ultimate test of any diplomacy is not merely whether it avoids the use of force but whether it secures our national security interests. Put simply, I believe the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action fails this test and it fails by the very criteria the administration itself once laid out as a good deal. Three years ago, President Obama said the goal of negotiations with Iran was to ``get Iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program and abide by U.N. resolutions that have been in place.'' This is what the President said: The deal we'll accept is they end their nuclear program. It's very straightforward. In reality, the deal doesn't require Iran to end its program; it simply suspends it for a period of years. As the President said in April, ``Iran is not going to simply dismantle its program because we demand it to do so.'' Let's contemplate that. ``Iran is not going to simply dismantle its program because we demand it to do so.'' Unfortunately, the administration's concessions didn't stop there. On November 24, 2013, Secretary Kerry said: There is no right to enrich. We do not recognize a right to enrich. However, in the final deal, the administration not only conceded the right to enrich, it also allowed Iran to maintain an industrial-scale enrichment capability that will only grow in size and sophistication. On the issue of Fordow, the once covert nuclear facility that was built deep into a mountain, President Obama said in December 2013 that Iran had no need--no need--for such a facility if all it sought was peaceful nuclear energy. Yet the final deal allows Iran to maintain nearly 1,000 centrifuges at Fordow and conduct nuclear-related testing there during the entire life of the agreement. On the issue of Iran's breakout capacity, President Obama said in December of 2013 that in the deal he envisions, the Iranians ``as a practical matter, do not have a breakout capacity.'' Here, too, the administration reversed itself, conceding to a breakout capacity in establishing the arbitrary standard of 1 year. Similarly, on the so-called possible military dimensions, or PMD, of Iran's past nuclear activities, Secretary Kerry said this April: They have to do it. It will be done. . . . It will be part of a final agreement. It has to be. Just 2 months later--2 months later--Secretary Kerry reversed himself, saying: We're not fixated on Iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point in time or another. We know what they did. We have no doubt. We have absolute knowledge. My friends, this kind of hubris is astonishing. I know of no intelligence professional who would share that level of certainty. But perhaps Secretary Kerry's reversal is because the final deal does not require Iran to resolve the PMD issue prior to receiving sanctions relief. Furthermore, the chief of Iran's atomic energy agency has said sanctions relief will proceed regardless of the resolution of the PMD issue. That was the chief of Iran's atomic energy agency. The mechanism to resolve longstanding international concerns about the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program is contained in a side agreement between Iran and the IAEA which neither the administration nor the Congress has seen. Get this: There is an agreement on inspection and verification that this Congress, before we vote, will never have seen and the American people will never have seen. How in the world, on the most important aspect of any agreement--verification--the provisions for which are not known to the Members of this body. That alone is a reason to demand--to demand-- what are those side agreements? Maybe they are nothing. Maybe they are something we would approve of. We don't even know what in the world they are. The administration provided a classified briefing on what they know to be in the side agreement, and suffice it to say that I think most of us--even on both sides of the aisle--would agree that briefing is one of the more bizarre and disturbing aspects of this deal. They called it unconventional. That is generous. What is more, inspections of Iran's facilities will be conducted by the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency. There will be no Americans allowed on the ground, and the details of how these monitoring activities will occur are contained in another side agreement between the IAEA and Iran. Here is the problem: Verifying that Iran is not cheating on this deal requires a full accounting of the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program. To verify that Iran has ceased its nuclear weapons-related activities necessarily requires that we know the full extent of these past activities--the personnel, facilities, equipment, and materials used and over what time period. We do not have that information. President Obama has said this deal is based on verification, not trust, but the means of verification are in many cases suspect. This presents a major problem. We will vote in the coming days on the Iran deal, but we cannot even read certain foundational documents pertaining to how that verification will occur, and our own government is not even a party to those agreements. I find that deeply troubling. It may account for, as more Americans know more about it, the overwhelming majority of Americans who do not approve of this deal. Even more troubling, however, is that the administration also conceded its longstanding and repeated promises that its diplomacy was limited exclusively to the nuclear fight. For nearly a decade, the international arms embargo has significantly hurt Iran's ability to build up and modernize its aging military. Not long before the deal was announced, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, before our committee--General Dempsey--told the Committee on Armed Services that ``under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.'' Is there anything in this agreement that does that? In fact, it is the opposite. In 5 years, the international arms embargo against Iran will be lifted, freeing up the regime to acquire advanced conventional military means capabilities such as fighter aircraft, air defense systems, and anti-ship missiles. With billions of dollars in sanctions relief, Iran is sure to find plenty of states that are eager to sell those weapons, especially Russia and China. In 8 years, the agreement would legitimate and accelerate Iran's development of ballistic missiles, including ICBMs, whose only conceivable military purpose would be to deliver nuclear weapons. This concession was made even as the Director of National Intelligence concluded earlier this year that ``Iran's ballistic missiles are inherently capable of delivering WMD''--that is weapons of mass destruction--``and Tehran already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East.'' In this way, the administration's Iran deal not only paves the Islamic Republic's path to a nuclear capability, it also furthers that regime's emergence as a dominant military power in the Middle East. This has direct and dangerous implications for the United States-- especially our Armed Forces. After all, the ultimate guarantee that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon is not a 109-page document; it is the capability of the U.S. military to do what is necessary to prevent it if all else fails. The administration says that the military option will remain on the table if Iran violates the agreement, and that is true. Yet the agreement itself would enable Iran to construct the very kind of advanced military arsenal that could raise the cost of employing our military option should it become necessary. In short, if this agreement fails and U.S. servicemembers are called upon to take military action in Iran, their lives clearly would be at greater risk because of the terms of this deal. As we debate the technical details of this agreement, this is the bigger picture we must stay focused on: the strategic implications of this agreement on nuclear proliferation, regional security, and the balance of power in an increasingly chaotic Middle East. This has been the focus of our oversight on the Committee on Armed Services, and from this perspective, this bad Iran deal only looks that much worse. Iran is not just an arms control challenge; it is a geopolitical challenge. For years, many of us have urged the administration to adopt a regional strategy to counter Iran's malign activities in the Middle East. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee pointed out what has been done by these IEDs that Qasem Soleimani sent into Iraq to kill and maim our men and women who are serving in the military. Unfortunately, if such a strategy exists, there is no evidence of it. Instead, we have watched with alarm as Iran's military and intelligence operatives have stepped up their destabilizing activities in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Gaza, and elsewhere. Iran did all of this under the full pressure of sanctions. Now Iran will receive tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief. To be sure, a good amount of that money will go to Iran's priorities, but much of it will also surely flow to Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps and Quds Force--groups that, as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also mentioned, were responsible for the deaths of several hundred U.S. servicemembers. This will have enormous consequences for stability in the Middle East and for America's credibility. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have sought to contain the malign influence of the Islamic Republic of Iran and prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. Our allies and partners have entrusted much of their own security to the United States because they believed our commitments were credible. In this way, America's role in the region has been to suppress security competition between states with long histories of mistrust and to prevent that competition from breaking down into conflict. I fear this agreement will further undermine our ability and willingness to play that vital stabilizing role. Our allies and partners in the Middle East have increasingly come to believe that America is withdrawing from the region and doing so at a time when Iran is aggressively seeking to advance its geopolitical ambitions. Now we have made a deal with Iran that will not only legitimize the Islamic Republic as a threshold nuclear state with an industrial enrichment capability but will also unshackle this regime in its long-held pursuit of conventional military power and may actually consolidate the Islamic Republic's control in Iran for years to come. The dangerous result is that our allies and partners will be increasingly likely to take matters into their own hands--and, indeed, we already see evidence of that. These fateful decisions may well manifest themselves in a growing regional security competition, new arms races, nuclear proliferation, and possible conflict, all of which would demand more, not less, U.S. leadership and presence in the region. Ultimately, this is what I find most troubling about the Iran deal. It embodies and will likely exacerbate the collapse of America's global influence that is occurring under this administration and indeed has so often been catalyzed by its policies. Just consider--just consider, my colleagues, how much more dangerous our world has become. A malign form of Russian influence is expanding in Europe and Eurasia. Vladimir Putin is using 21st century weapons to further his 19th century ambitions of the Russian Empire--most dramatically in Ukraine where Putin seeks to annex the territory of a sovereign country. Our President goes to Estonia and days later Russia abducts an Estonian agent on Estonian territory. What message does that send? China's leaders also appear to feel emboldened. Our President visits Asia, and the next week China escalates tensions with a U.S. partner in the South China Sea. Our President visits Alaska and five--for the first time five Chinese warships show up in the Aleutians, violating the 12-mile limit. Meanwhile, China continues its military modernization while building and militarizing land features in international waters. Again, there is no deterrence. Cyber attacks against our Nation are increasing in regularity and severity. In just the past year, we have been attacked by North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia. The administration does what? Nothing. There is no deterrence, so the attacks continue. We have watched the hard-won gains of our men and women in uniform melt away in Iraq following the President's decision to withdraw all of our troops in 2011 over the objections of his military leaders and commanders on the ground. Of course, there is the conflict in Syria, which has claimed 220,000 lives and counting, spawned the largest and most threatening terrorist army in the world, involved the repeated use of weapons of mass destruction, destabilized the entire Middle East, and led to the largest refugee crisis in Europe since World War II. There is no one who was not deeply moved by the picture of the 3- year-old baby on the beach. My friends, that is a direct result of Obama's foreign policy and have no doubt about it. Amidst all of these growing threats, for 4 years now the Budget Control Act and sequestration have cut our military by hundreds of billions of dollars for no strategic rationale whatsoever. Congress has, unfortunately, been complicit in this disaster, but if the President showed as much personal engagement and willingness to compromise with the Republicans as he did with the Iranians, we could repeal the Budget Control Act and sequestration and fund the government tomorrow. Through it all, my colleagues, what have we heard from our President? We have been told that America's influence is limited, as if that is not always the case. We have been told there are no good options to the challenges we face, as if there ever are in the real world. We have been told we cannot solve every problem in the world, as if that absolves us from ever attempting to solve any problem. We have been told the administration's worst failures are always someone else's fault and that no policy of theirs, after 6 years in power, is ever to blame. We have been told the only alternative to our current mess of a foreign policy is war and that anyone who disagrees with this President--Republicans and Democrats; they make no distinction--is a warmonger--is a warmonger. Again and again, where there should be leadership and statesmanship, there is only a parade of truisms and defeatist rhetoric and straw man arguments and partisan attacks. This has tainted and cheapened our national discourse, as evidenced by the fact that unlike past landmark diplomatic agreements, this one will likely come into force on a party-line minority vote. Let me emphasize that. This Iranian deal will likely be rejected by a bipartisan majority of both Houses of Congress. If there is a precedent in American history for such a thing, I cannot think of it. Indeed, a recent Pew poll found that only 21 percent of Americans approve of the Iranian deal. This has also diminished our standing in the world. Our words ring hollow. Our reassurances fail to reassure. Our warnings are not heeded. Our redlines are crossed. Our moral influence is being discredited and tarnished. Americans sense this and so do our adversaries. They perceive it as weakness, and it is provocative. We need leadership, a strategy, and policies to address this crisis in our foreign policy, especially the broader threat posed by Iran. This larger response should include, among other steps, increasing sanctions against Iran for its malign activities in the Middle East and its human rights abuses, new security assistance for our allies and partners in the region, and once and for all eliminating the specter of sequestration. This Congress should take up this effort with new legislation. I look forward to working on it with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. That time will come. However, the question now before this body is whether to disapprove of the administration's deal with Iran. I will vote yes. I disapprove of this deal because it would not cut off Iran's path to a nuclear weapon, it would pave a new one. I disapprove of this deal because it would legitimize the Islamic Republic as a threshold nuclear state with an industrial enrichment capability that will grow unfettered after the key terms of the deal end. I disapprove of this deal because it unshackles Tehran's pursuit of conventional military power. I disapprove of this deal because it rests on the assumption--the hope, really--that in a decade or so we may be dealing with a better Iranian regime. Yet the deal itself will likely strengthen the current Iranian regime. This deal is not in our national security interests. Congress and the American people should reject it. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Illinois that I will be more than happy to yield to any speaker on the other side. I was under the impression that we were going to be going back and forth, and I think that would contribute to the debate. If the Senator from Illinois or the Senator from Hawaii or anyone else wishes to speak, I will be glad to yield.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, am I recognized?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Florida's--I am sure heartfelt--remarks, only 21 percent of the American people agree with his stated position there, and I am sure he will hear from his constituents, as he should. I did not come to the floor this morning to talk about the agreement. I will save my remarks, which I have been asked to make, for this afternoon. Refugee Crisis and American Leadership

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call attention to the urgent refugee crisis that is happening in our midst. Men, women, and children are fleeing by the thousands from the violence and destruction that has engulfed the Middle East and North Africa. This crisis didn't come out of nowhere like an earthquake or a tornado. Instead, it is the predictable result of this administration's policies of leading from behind as conflicts metastasized in the vacuum created through years of inaction by President Obama and a total lack of American leadership. This did not happen by accident. It happened because of leading from behind. It happened because this President has refused to lead. When a vacuum is created, this is the predictable result which many of us predicted. As we know, the vast majority of these refugees are from Syria, a country which has known little but death and destruction for 4 years as a murderous dictatorship and a homicidal cult have fought a war against a common enemy, the Syrian people. As Assad and ISIL fight to rule, cruelty and atrocity reign. According to the United Nations Refugee Agency, about 63 percent of European asylum seekers in the past 2 years are Syrians, but the truth is, the refugee crisis is much bigger than what we are seeing today in Europe. Since 2011, well over 200,000 Syrians have been killed, 1 million injured, 8 million displaced, 4 million forced to seek refuge abroad in countries such as Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt where the situation is not much better. The United Nations has described this crisis as ``the greatest humanitarian crisis tragedy of our times.'' As conditions at refugee camps in the region continue to deteriorate with overcrowding, disease, violence, and exploitation, those who can are attempting to escape further west to safer places in Europe. The United Nations estimates that at least 850,000 people will seek refuge in Europe between 2015 and 2016. About a quarter of them will be children. These children are increasingly leaving their families and homes to make dangerous journeys by sea and land. While they are risking their lives to escape the threat of abduction, sexual abuse, torture and murder, they face an entirely new set of threats on this desperate journey for asylum. Many are on traversing unsafe routes, suffering from starvation, facing the threat of human trafficking, enduring debilitating psychological trauma, and, of course, many are dying. The U.N. Refugee Agency has stated that about 2,600 people have died while attempting to cross the Mediterranean this year alone, including 3-year-old Aylan Kurdi. Aylan grew up in the Syrian city of Kobani, a city situated on the border of Turkey, which in recent years has been under siege by ISIL militants and the Assad regime. Facing increasing turmoil and unrest, Aylan's father, Abdullah, and mother, Rehen, did what any parent would do for their children. They attempted to move Aylan and his 4-year-old brother Galip to a safer home. Abdullah arranged for his family to board a boat bound for Sweden by way of Greece, a trip that many of his fellow Syrians have attempted over the years. But when the Kurdi family met their smugglers in Turkey, they were surprised how crowded the small, flimsy fiberglass boat was. Despite repeated questions about the safety of the voyage, the smugglers assured Abdullah they would be OK. Shortly into the trip, the waters became increasingly rough, crashing into the boat and rocking it back and forth until it capsized, launching the passengers--including Aylan, his mother, and 4-year-old brother--into the rough waters. Despite Abdullah's strongest attempts, he was unable to save his family. This photo, which was taken shortly after Aylan's dead body was washed ashore, has opened the world's eyes to this devastating crisis. Within hours of this photo being posted, people across the world began to share it on social media using a hashtag in Arabic that translates to ``humanity washed ashore.'' This image has haunted the world, but what should haunt us even more than the horror unfolding before our eyes is the thought that the United States will continue to do nothing meaningful about it. The conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa that have taken the lives of Aylan and countless other desperate refugees are not only a threat to our security, but a crisis of conscience. They challenge the moral fabric of our Nation and the foundation of global leadership. Let's be clear. The current crisis before us is not a migrant issue. They are not migrants. Migrants leave for economic reasons. It is a mass exodus of refugees who are fleeing conflicts that this administration has refused to address for years. As the U.N. High Commissioner stated last week: ``This is a primarily refugee crisis, not only a migration phenomenon. The vast majority of those arriving in Greece come from conflict zones like Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan and are simply running for their lives.'' I say to the media: Stop calling them migrants. They are not migrants. They are refugees who are attempting to escape from torture, murder, killing, and genocide. Statements and images like these should not just be a source of heartbreak and sympathy; they should be a call to action. The following quote is from the Wall Street Journal editorial this morning. Another Syria Failure It's hard to believe, but the debacle that is the Obama Administration's Syria policy could get worse. U.S. sources have been leaking that Russia may be preparing for a major military deployment to keep Bashar Assad in power in Damascus. By some reports quoting Western diplomats, a Russian expeditionary force is already in Syria preparing for the arrival of jets and attack helicopters to carry out strikes against Islamic State . . . Mr. Assad is a Russian ally, and Vladimir Putin isn't about to let the Syrian government fall without a bigger fight. Like so much else in the Middle East, President Obama has created an opening for this Russian intervention by minimizing U.S. interests in the outcome of Syria's civil war. He has refused to offer more than token help to pro-Western Syrians, thus ceding the battleground to radical Islamists or the Assad-Russia-Iran- Hezbollah axis. Don't expect a decline in the flow of refugees anytime soon. Just a few months after the revolution in Syria began in 2011, President Obama issued his Presidential Study Directive stating: ``Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.'' He went on to say: ``Our security is affected when masses of civilians are slaughtered, refugees flow across borders, and murderers wreak havoc on regional stability and livelihoods.'' In 2013, President Obama, speaking at the U.S. Holocaust Museum, said: ``Too often, the world has failed to prevent the killing of innocents on a massive scale. And we are haunted by the atrocities that we did not stop and the lives we did not save.'' In a 2013 address to the U.N. General Assembly, President Obama said: [T]he principle of sovereignty is at the center of our international order. But sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder, or an excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye. While we need to be modest in our belief that we can remedy every evil, while we need to be mindful that the world is full of unintended consequences, should we really accept the notion that the world is powerless in the face of a Rwanda, or Srebrenica? If that's the world that people want to live in, they should say so, and reckon with the cold logic of mass graves. I strongly suggest, given the fact that there is no policy, no strategy, and no effective way of stemming this horror, that the President of the United States should say so and reckon with the cold logic of mass graves. That was our President. By the way, I agree with every word he said, but how can the American people reconcile these words with pictures of dead children and desperate refugees literally running for their lives? How can President Obama say it is our moral obligation to do what we can to prevent the worst atrocities in our world but refuse to do anything to stop the atrocities that are occurring every single day in Syria and across the Middle East? Where is that President Obama today? Where is the President Obama who has spoken so movingly of the moral responsibilities that great power confers? Unfortunately, the administration is still ``considering a range of options''--I am not making this up--to respond to this issue, a National Security Council spokesman stated this week. In the meantime, the President and his cabinet officials continue to push through an agreement that legitimatizes Iran, which is not only the leading state sponsor of terror in the world, but the patron of the Assad regime responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Syrians. After this deal, Iran's power in the region will only be enhanced, and it is safe to assume that it will use the billions of dollars in sanctions relief to boost arms supplies to Iran's terrorist proxies, to sow chaos and instability across the region, and to prop up Assad right when he needs it most. As the administration stands by, Russia is capitalizing on America's inaction to provide additional support for the Assad regime. According to numerous press reports, Russia is establishing a base at an airfield near an Assad stronghold in western Syria. Russia could soon deploy 1,000 or more military personnel into Syria to conduct air operations in support of Assad's forces. Our government is doing what it has sadly done too often in the past, receding our strength and averting our eyes. We try to comfort our guilty consciences by telling ourselves that we are not doing nothing, but it is a claim made in bad faith, for everyone concedes that nothing we are doing is equal to the horrors we face. We are telling ourselves: We're too tired or weary to get more involved, that this is not our problem, that helping to resolve this crisis is not our responsibility, and that there are no options to end the conflicts around the world today. The truth is there was plenty that could have been done to avoid the devastation unfolding before our eyes in 2011, in 2012, in 2013, in 2014. And there is still more we can do today to respond to this growing crisis. My friends, my colleagues, my fellow Americans, I fear the longer this violence goes on, the more difficult it will be to bring it to an end. Failing to do so will leave a dangerous vacuum that enables extremism and instability to grow and provides terrorists the space, resources, and recruits they need to wreak havoc on the region and threaten the United States of America. It is not too late. We must not avert our eyes from Aylan and the millions of other refugees running for their lives. We must commit to a strategy to defeat the malign forces in the region that are sowing chaos and mass destruction. Failing to act now leaves us with even fewer options to rectify this terrible chapter in our history. Speaking of history, I am a student of history. I don't believe there are exact parallels in American history, but there are certain areas where a failure to lead leads to catastrophic consequences. In 1938, on October 5, a man named Winston Churchill--who was shunned by his colleagues and ridiculed in the House of Commons for his constant speaking and warning--in one of my favorites of the appearances he made in the House of Commons before his fellow citizens, he said: And do not suppose this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to commend the Budget Committee chairman for his ongoing efforts to tackle the fire-borrowing issue. We all agree that the Forest Service should receive the funding it needs to fight fires. I am also glad that there is growing agreement that the Forest Service should budget for 100 percent of its wildfire suppression costs as proposed in legislation introduced by me and my colleagues, Senator Flake and Senator Barrasso. We also know that science has shown how forest restoration is highly effective in reducing wildfire severity. I look forward to working with Senator Wyden and the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee on an agreeable solution that protects wildfire prevention and wildfire suppression as the two top priorities of the Forest Service.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this Friday marks 1 year since the Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability and Transparency Act was signed into law by President Obama. This bipartisan legislation was intended to address the nationwide scandal involving the death of at least 40 veterans who had been waiting for weeks, months, and even years for necessary care from the VA. Ultimately, we learned that senior VA officials purposely denied care and lied about it to obtain financial bonuses. We are still cleaning-up the aftermath of this scandal and Congress' work continues today. The hallmark of that law is the VA Choice Card, which for the first time allows veterans who can't make an appointment in a reasonable time frame or who live far from a VA medical facility, to see the doctor of their choice to get the care they need. But, with all the bureaucratic hoops that the VA has required veterans to jump through to use the Choice Card since that law's enactment and the lack of information the VA has provided veterans and relevant providers on how to get and use the Card, the VA has clearly been reluctant to expanding choice for veterans. Even after a year, I continue to get e-mails, letters and phone calls from veterans and their caregivers who are extremely frustrated with the inability to use the VA Choice Card. As I said at the time, last year's bill was meant as a beginning, not an end, to addressing inadequate care for our veterans. While the current law authorizes a three-year pilot program to begin implementation of the VA Choice Card, the year that has passed since its enactment has shown is that there is overwhelming demand for veterans to have the same freedom of choice for their health care that military and civilian retirees have. I have long advocated for our veterans to have the flexibility to choose where and when they receive the care they have earned. And the Permanent VA Choice Card Act that I am introducing today moves us in that direction. The Permanent VA Choice Card Act makes the current 3-year pilot program for the VA Choice Card permanent. This would help remove uncertainty both within the VA, among providers, and especially among our disabled veterans that this program is here to stay. Also, the Permanent VA Choice Card Act would expand eligibility for the Choice Card. Any service-connected veteran enrolled through the VA should have access to this level of choice. It would do so by removing the requirement that a qualified veteran live more than 40 miles from a VA facility or have to wait 30 days for an appointment. It is clear our veterans are in need of care and are not able to receive it. More than a year after the VA scandal and a year since the Choice Act was signed into law, wait-times are still too long and in some facilities are even longer than they were a year ago. The VA has made it challenging for those with the VA Choice Card to make appointments, get follow-ups, and to see specialists near their homes. By enacting the Permanent VA Choice Card Act, we will make sure that no veteran should be denied needed care due to wait times or distance to a VA facility.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this Friday marks 1 year since the Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability and Transparency Act was signed into law by President Obama. This bipartisan legislation was intended to address the nationwide scandal involving the death of at least 40 veterans who had been waiting for weeks, months, and even years for necessary care from the VA. Ultimately, we learned that senior VA officials purposely denied care and lied about it to obtain financial bonuses. We are still cleaning-up the aftermath of this scandal and Congress' work continues today. The hallmark of that law is the VA Choice Card, which for the first time allows veterans who can't make an appointment in a reasonable time frame or who live far from a VA medical facility, to see the doctor of their choice to get the care they need. But, with all the bureaucratic hoops that the VA has required veterans to jump through to use the Choice Card since that law's enactment and the lack of information the VA has provided veterans and relevant providers on how to get and use the Card, the VA has clearly been reluctant to expanding choice for veterans. Even after a year, I continue to get e-mails, letters and phone calls from veterans and their caregivers who are extremely frustrated with the inability to use the VA Choice Card. As I said at the time, last year's bill was meant as a beginning, not an end, to addressing inadequate care for our veterans. While the current law authorizes a three-year pilot program to begin implementation of the VA Choice Card, the year that has passed since its enactment has shown is that there is overwhelming demand for veterans to have the same freedom of choice for their health care that military and civilian retirees have. I have long advocated for our veterans to have the flexibility to choose where and when they receive the care they have earned. And the Permanent VA Choice Card Act that I am introducing today moves us in that direction. The Permanent VA Choice Card Act makes the current 3-year pilot program for the VA Choice Card permanent. This would help remove uncertainty both within the VA, among providers, and especially among our disabled veterans that this program is here to stay. Also, the Permanent VA Choice Card Act would expand eligibility for the Choice Card. Any service-connected veteran enrolled through the VA should have access to this level of choice. It would do so by removing the requirement that a qualified veteran live more than 40 miles from a VA facility or have to wait 30 days for an appointment. It is clear our veterans are in need of care and are not able to receive it. More than a year after the VA scandal and a year since the Choice Act was signed into law, wait-times are still too long and in some facilities are even longer than they were a year ago. The VA has made it challenging for those with the VA Choice Card to make appointments, get follow-ups, and to see specialists near their homes. By enacting the Permanent VA Choice Card Act, we will make sure that no veteran should be denied needed care due to wait times or distance to a VA facility.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I will just ask one more question. It is obvious that the Senator from California and the Senator from North Carolina have worked very closely together on this issue. They are the two leaders on intelligence now for a number of years. Wouldn't it seem logical that with a bipartisan piece of legislation that addresses an issue--I guess my question is this: How many Americans have been affected most recently by cyber attacks, and what would this legislation do to try to prohibit that from happening again? Don't we have some obligation to try to address the vulnerabilities of average American everyday citizens?

Mr. McCAIN. And isn't this a bipartisan product?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 3 minutes and that I be followed immediately by the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is the parliamentary procedure that there was an objection to the Senate moving forward with the consideration of the cyber bill? Is that correct?