John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize and honor Lieutenant Kathryn Rosenberg, U.S. Navy, as she transfers from the Navy Office of Legislative Affairs. A native of Pennsylvania, Lieutenant Rosenberg was commissioned an ensign through the Naval ROTC Program upon graduation from George Washington University in 2008. Lieutenant Rosenberg, a surface warfare officer, has performed in a consistently outstanding manner under the most challenging of circumstances. Lieutenant Rosenberg served with distinction and gained extensive experience in the surface fleet during her first two sea tours. While assigned to the USS Stockdale (DDG 106) from June 2008 to November 2010, Lieutenant Rosenberg served as the pre-commissioning auxiliaries officer and combat information center officer while obtaining her surface warfare officer pin and engineering officer of the watch qualification. From March 2011 to December 2012, Lieutenant Rosenberg was assigned to the USS Vicksburg (CG 69), where she served as the fire control officer while qualifying as the anti-air warfare commander, force anti-air warfare commander, and force tactical action officer. Since January 2013, Lieutenant Rosenberg has served as a Senate liaison officer in the Navy Office of Legislative Affairs. In this capacity, she has been a major asset to the Navy and Congress. Over the course of the last 2 years, Lieutenant Rosenberg has led 21 Congressional delegations to 36 different countries. She has escorted 54 Members of Congress and 36 personal and professional staff members. She has distinguished herself by going above and beyond the call of duty to facilitate and successfully execute each and every trip, despite any number of weather, aircraft, and diplomatic complications. Her leadership, energy, and integrity have ensured that numerous challenging Senate overseas trips have been flawlessly executed, to include an arduous trip to Afghanistan. This Chamber will feel Lieutenant Rosenberg's absence. I join many past and present Members of Congress in my gratitude and appreciation to Lieutenant Rosenberg for her outstanding leadership and her unwavering support of the missions of the U.S. Navy, the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and others. I wish Lieutenant Rosenberg ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I honor James ``Jim'' Malone, a retired Navy veteran from Chandler, AZ who tragically passed away at the young age of 55 after a hard-fought battle with Adenocarcinoma, a terminal form of cancer. Jim served honorably in the U.S. Navy from 1977 to 1981 before retiring as a disbursing clerk second class. Having served during peacetime, Jim wrote that his most meaningful memory was pulling out of port and seeing the land disappear. ``I always got a charge over that,'' he said. ``When I was on watch, I would look out and realize that I was protecting family and loved ones back home.'' Before his untimely death, Jim received word that the Dream Foundation, a national dream-granting organization for adults and their families suffering from life-threatening illness, would help him achieve a life-long wish to visit Washington, DC. My office helped the foundation do everything we could to plan a memorable trip for Jim and his wife and son, including tours of the White House and U.S. Capitol and visits to historic landmarks around the city. Jim was deeply proud of his military service, and looked forward to sharing the rich cultural history of the Nation's capital with his family, writing: ``I am hoping this trip will help them to fully understand why I felt the call to duty in my youth and why my service to this country is so important to me.'' He described his ``deep love of this country and its history'' and the importance of sharing that patriotic spirit with his family. Tragically, Jim's health sharply declined in the week leading up to his trip, and he passed away the day before he was expected to depart for his dream experience. While Jim left this world far too early, we should all take comfort in knowing that his memory and selfless service has left a mark on Arizona and our Nation. I am also comforted by the work that organizations like the Dream Foundation have and will continue to do to honor veterans like Jim through dream-granting programs that give dying veterans and their families the opportunity to make the most of the time they have left, while also improving their end-of-life care. As Sheri, Jim's wife, explained, ``[My husband was] overwhelmed by the Foundation granting him his dream. Even though he didn't get to go on the trip,'' she continued, ``it helped to restore his faith in the goodness of people.'' I hope we might all keep in our thoughts and prayers the Malone family as they mourn the loss of their beloved husband and father, whose service to our State and Nation will always be remembered.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before I make a unanimous consent request, I wish to say, for the information of my colleagues, that, as happens on occasion, the legislation of the National Defense Authorization Act was in violation of the Ways and Means jurisdiction in the House, which then led to an automatic blue slip, which means that basically, for all intents and purposes, the entire bill comes to a standstill. In order to repair that, it requires unanimous consent in the Senate in order to strike the provision and send it back to the House, without the provision which they found objectionable--their Parliamentarian did--and which required the so-called blue slip. So I appreciate very much the agreement of the Democratic leader, who agreed to this unanimous consent request, so that we can move forward with a conference on the bill and hopefully, if now things go right, we could get it to the President's desk in July. I thank the Democratic leader, who has agreed to this unanimous consent request, in order that we might move forward. So I express my appreciation to him for allowing this. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives the papers on H.R. 1735, the Secretary of the Senate re-engross the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1735, with the following: Strike section 636.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, after a lifetime of service to our Nation, ADM Samuel J. Locklear III recently stepped down as Commander of United States Pacific Command and retired from the U.S. Navy. On this occasion, I wish to honor Admiral Locklear's 43 years of distinguished uniformed service to our Nation. Admiral Locklear graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1977. He has led at every level from command-at-sea to theater command. Prior to assuming command of the United States Pacific Command, he commanded U.S. Naval Forces Europe and concurrently, U.S. Naval Forces Africa and NATO's Commander of the Allied Joint Force Command, where his leadership was instrumental in galvanizing an effective coalition of 18 NATO nations to support the complex Libya air campaign. At Pacific Command, Admiral Locklear provided the strategic vision required to lead in a region vital to America's future peace and prosperity. He has presided over the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific with an even-keeled leadership approach that has focused our Nation in a time of difficult security challenges and austere budgets. Pacific Command is the oldest and largest of our geographic commands encompassing roughly half of the Earth's surface, extending from pole to pole and across the vastness of two great oceans. Admiral Locklear skillfully navigated the complexities and competing interests of this expansive theater. He has worked to strengthen alliances, reinvigorate old ones, cultivate new partnerships, and maintain a robust forward presence to assure and defend our allies and partners. Admiral Locklear's legacy of service will be as a driving force behind a renewed commitment to protecting America's enduring interests in the Asia-Pacific region. When the Nation needed its very best in military experience, leadership, and advice to confront the challenges and threats we face globally, Admiral Locklear answered the call. I join many past and present members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in my gratitude to ADM Samuel Locklear for his outstanding leadership and his unwavering commitment to the peace and stability of the Asia-Pacific region. His impact will continue into the coming decades and our Navy and our Nation will feel his absence. I wish him and his wife Pam ``fair winds and following seas.''

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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I hope we are in the final hours of a 2\1/ 2\-week consideration of the Defense authorization bill. Not all amendments were debated and not as many were reported yet. We still have hopes that there could be a managers' package, which is composed of agreed-upon amendments by both sides, equally divided by both sides of the aisle, both Republican and Democratic. There are some important amendments, so I hope we are able to get approval of at least some of them prior to the votes that I believe will be scheduled for this afternoon in order to conclude debate and consideration of the Defense authorization act. As we enter the final throes--and there are Members on the other side of the aisle and maybe even on this side of the aisle who are deeply concerned about the OCO funding for this authorization--I repeat again to my colleagues, I don't like the use of OCO. I would like to follow the advice of every one of our military leaders who say that continued sequestration puts the lives of the men and women who are serving in the military in greater danger. I am not sure we have a greater obligation than to do everything possible to prevent the lives of our men and women serving in uniform from being put in greater danger. To get hung up on the method of funding, which many will use as a rationale for opposing this bill, seems to me an upside down set of priorities--badly upside down. If we don't fund, if we don't authorize, if we don't make possible for us to equip and train and retain the finest military force in the world, why is it a higher priority to object to the method of funding? As I said, in a perfect world, I would argue vigorously--and have continued to--about the harmful effects of sequestration. I am not talking about a political opinion. I am talking about the view of the uniformed leaders of our Nation who have the respect and admiration of all of us. They are telling us that if we continue sequestration, which would be the effect of not including the additional funding of the overseas contingency operations, then obviously in this world that becomes more and more dangerous as we speak--and I continue to quote probably the most respected man in America, in many respects, Henry Kissinger, who testified before our committee that he has never seen more crises around the world since World War II, as is the case today. I would entreat my colleagues who may be contemplating voting against this legislation on the grounds that the funding is a disqualifying factor--it is a troubling factor and it is troubling to me--but shouldn't we care more about the men and women who are serving in the military than the problem you might have with a certain process that was followed in order to get there? I would think not. If you look at the world in 2011, when the unthinkable happened; that is, that sequestration automatically kicked in because both sides were unable to agree on a process that would reduce the deficit and put us on a path to a balanced budget. Everyone said sequestration will not happen because they will come to an agreement. Obviously, sequestration did happen. But if you look at the world in the year of 2011, when sequestration kicked in, and the world today, I think--I think--there is a compelling argument that national security and national defense is far more important than it was then. Because of a series of events that began in 2011--including an incredibly misguided decision by the President of the United States to withdraw all forces from Iraq, which then, inevitably, as some of us predicted, led to the situation as it exists today--the world is now and the Middle East is now literally on fire. What are the results of the misguided policies and the commitment on the part of the President to get us out of wars? The President ignored one reality; that is, that we may get Americans out of wars, but that doesn't mean the wars are over. What we have seen is the spread of ISIS. We have seen Iran on the move in nations throughout the region, including the latest information we have that Iran is supplying weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan, not to mention Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, where they are basically in control. Our Sunni Arab--Middle Eastern Arab nations are now going their own way because they have no confidence in the United States. What has been the result? All you have to do is pick up this morning's copy of the Washington Post. ``Refugee crisis hits tipping point. U.N. ranks 2014 as worst year on record, cites dire need for aid.'' London--The number of people uprooted from their homes by war and persecution in 2014 was larger than in any year since detailed record-keeping began, according to a comprehensive report released early Thursday by the U.N. refugee agency that will add to the evidence of a global exodus unlike any in modern times. Just a year after the number of refugees, asylum-seekers and people forced to flee within their own countries surpassed 50 million for the first time since World War II, it surged to nearly 60 million in 2014--``a nation of the displaced'' that is roughly equal to the population of the United Kingdom. The rapidly escalating figures reflect a world of renewed conflict, with wars in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Europe driving families and individuals from their homes in desperate flights for safety. But the systems for managing those flows are breaking down, with countries and aid agencies unable to handle the strain as an average of nearly 45,000 people a day join the ranks of the displaced. I urge my colleagues to understand two things: One, a lot of these things didn't have to happen. The absence of American leadership and involvement is largely responsible for a great deal of this. Second of all, it is of vital importance, in my view, given the situation throughout the world, that we pass the Defense authorization bill, reconcile our differences with the legislation with the House and the administration, and take into account that this is probably the greatest piece of reform legislation in recent history, perhaps in the last 30 years, since the then-well-known Goldwater-Nichols Act was passed. In Reuters today, it says: ``World's displaced hits record high of 60 million, half of them children.'' Of the 60 million people who are displaced, half of them are children. They are the ones who always suffer the most. The article says: . . . at the end of last year, the highest ever recorded number, the U.N. refugee agency said on Thursday. More than half the displaced from crises including Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia were children, UNHCR said in its Annual Global Trends Report. In 2014, an average of 42,500 people became refugees, asylum seekers, or internally displaced every day, representing a four-fold increase in just four years. In 4 years, there was a fourfold increase in the number of refugees. Again, that is not an accident. ``We are witnessing a paradigm change, an unchecked slide into an era in which the scale of global forced displacement as well as the response required is now clearly dwarfing anything seen before,'' said U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres in a statement. UNHCR said Syria, where conflict has raged since 2011, was the world's biggest source of internally displaced people and refugees. There were 7.6 million displaced people in Syria by the end of last year and almost 4 million Syrian refugees, mainly living in the neighboring countries of Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. For the information of my colleagues, there are now more Syrian children in school in Lebanon than there are Lebanese children in school in Lebanon. UNHCR said there were 38.2 million displaced by conflict within national borders, almost five million more than a year before, with wars in Ukraine, South Sudan, Nigeria, Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo swelling the figures. It also noted that more than 1.6 million people sought political asylum in a foreign country last year, a jump of more than 50 percent compared to the previous year--largely due to the 270,000 Ukrainians who submitted asylum claims in Russia. While many conflicts have erupted or reignited in the past five years, few have been conclusively resolved. Just 126,800 refugees were able to return home in 2014, the lowest number in 31 years, UNHCR said. I say to my colleagues, I have been to refugee camps, and I have seen the suffering and pain and the hopelessness there. I was taken around by a teacher at a refugee camp where there were about 175,000 people, as I recall, in Jordan, and there were a large number of children around in this camp. The teacher said to me: Senator McCain, do you see all of these children here? I said: Yes, I do. She said: They believe you Americans have abandoned them, and when they grow up, they are going to take revenge on you. My friends, we are sowing the wind, and we will reap the whirlwind. It is time that the United States assumed again a leadership role in the world. Now many of the critics who call me ``Defense Hawk'' McCain--I am not sure why the opponents are not called ``Defense Doves,'' fill in the blank--seem to believe I am advocating that a large number of American troops be dispatched to the region. I am not, but I am saying we should listen to the successful military leaders who succeeded in the surge in Iraq and to a large degree succeeded in Afghanistan. I am speaking of General Petraeus, General Keane, and Admiral McRaven. There are a number of people, both military and civilian, we should listen to. Ryan Crocker, to me, is the most respected member of the diplomatic corps I have ever seen. Those people ought to be brought together and asked for their views to see if we can develop a strategy--a strategy, by the way, which the President of the United States just a few days ago stated is nonexistent. They should be called, and we need to develop a strategy. There is no strategy. If we had a strategy--and these numbers of a record high of the world's displaced of 60 million people, half of them children--perhaps we could turn this situation around. No one believes we are winning in the struggle against ISIS. We are at the negotiating table in various luxuriant hotels and resorts in Europe, negotiating with the Iranians over a nuclear deal while they are moving and controlling four nations, and the latest, of course, is that they are supplying weapons to the Taliban. We need to have a strategy that is inclusive, and we need to draw on the experience and knowledge from some of the most respected men we have in this country with a military, political, diplomatic, and economic background and come up with a strategy. I will tell my colleagues there is no good answer. There is the least of bad options. But we have to exercise an option rather than run in place for the next year and a half until we have a new President of the United States. This legislation is not going to solve those problems. This legislation has certain policy implications. This legislation does not achieve the goals I was just speaking about. But this legislation does do the things we need to do--we, as the people's elected representatives whose first obligation is the defense of this Nation. This legislation addresses many issues that will make our defense establishment more responsive, more responsible, more efficient, and most of all will provide the equipment and the capabilities for the men and women who are serving in the military, many of them still in harm's way, so that they can defend this Nation. Anybody who believes ISIS would be content to remain in the Middle East and not export that terror to the United States of America has not listened to the Director of the CIA, the head of the FBI, and every other military expert. ISIS is bent on harming America. When Mr. Baghdadi left Camp Bucca, where he spent 4 years--Mr. Baghdadi, obviously, as we know, is the leader of ISIS. He spent 4 years at Camp Bucca in Iraq. When he left, he said: I will see you in New York. Mr. Baghdadi wasn't kidding. ISIS is bent on attacking us. Can they destroy us? No. But the ability of ISIS to be able to launch some attacks on the United States of America grows every time there are thousands of young men and some young women who go to Syria and Iraq and are radicalized even more and return, sooner or later, to the country from which they came. I ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle put aside the smaller differences we have. And there are differences with my colleagues on this side of the aisle concerning, for example, the sage-grouse and a number of other provisions in this bill. I urge my colleagues to put aside those differences--and in the view of many, there are significant differences--and vote in favor of this legislation and send a message that at least on the issue of defending the Nation, we will provide the men and women who are putting their lives on the line on our behalf the best possible capabilities we can possibly provide for them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article entitled ``Refugee crisis hits tipping point'' in the Washington Post this morning be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would note for my colleagues the presence of General Dunford, Commandant of the Marine Corps, a great combat leader and leader of our military and considered to be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a man we all admire a great deal. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Maryland for his consideration. I can assure him that we share a common set of concerns and common set of goals on this issue. We have discussed a pathway forward that addresses the questions raised by his proposed amendments, and I look forward to working with him going forward. And I very much look forward to continuing to work with him on this issue.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the ranking member and I have a small package of amendments that have been cleared by both sides. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII and adoption of the McCain substitute, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up and agreed to en bloc: McCain No. 1974, as modified; Murkowski No. 2030; Vitter No. 1472, as modified; Daines No. 1890; Coats No. 1705; Flake No. 1720; Gardner No. 1708; Enzi No. 1908; Paul No. 1678; Hatch No. 1811; Fischer No. 1825; King No. 2020; Menendez No. 2050, as modified; Coons No. 1474; Murphy No. 1901; Warren No. 1902; Blumenthal No. 1563; Durbin No. 1703; Tester No. 1944, as modified; Casey No. 1747; Schatz No. 2006; Leahy No. 1931; Ayotte No. 2011; and Bennet No. 1916. These have been agreed to by both sides, and I thank all Members for the agreement of this package. I am sorry it is not larger, but it is equally divided between both sides of the aisle.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time on H.R. 1735 expire at 1:45 p.m. today, with the time equally divided between the managers or their designees for debate only.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I have asked the members of the committee to convene in the President's Room at 1:30 p.m., if they would, because there is a portion of the bill, the annex, that needs to be approved. We need a quorum for that so that we can move forward with the final vote on the bill. I also wish to thank all Members on both sides of the aisle for the conduct of this debate in consideration of a very large and very complex piece of legislation. I especially thank my friend from Rhode Island, who has worked diligently, along with his staff, to see that we arrive at this point. We have a lot of other hurdles to go through, but without getting through this one, we couldn't have been prepared for those that are laid before us before the President puts his signature on this most important piece of legislation. I yield to my friend from Rhode Island.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we approach a final vote on the National Defense Authorization Act, I take this opportunity to thank my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed. Despite his lack of substantive education somewhere on the Hudson River, he has been thoughtful, bipartisan, and he has maintained that throughout the consideration of this legislation. We worked together through hundreds of amendments in markup and hundreds more during the past 2 weeks, and obviously we have some differences from time to time. Senator Reed has never stopped searching for common ground and consensus, and so this legislation would not be what it is without his leadership and his cooperation. I would just remind my friend, however, that the title of this legislation is ``to authorize appropriations''--not to appropriate but to authorize appropriations. That is the task of the Appropriations Committee. So the OCO issue, which he and I are largely in agreement on, should have been repeal of sequestration. That is an issue which should be addressed where the authority lies--in appropriations, not in authorization. We can't increase or decrease a single penny of authorization except what was given to us through the Budget Committee process, which was votes and decisions made on this floor on the budget. So I say with respect and friendship, if there is a problem here, it is not with the authorization. We don't spend a penny. We authorize the expenditure of money. And that is an issue that my friend from Rhode Island and I disagree on, but it did not prohibit him, me, our staffs, and members of the committee on both sides of the aisle from working on a piece of legislation that, in my view, which is clearly subjective, is a reform bill--a reform bill, working together, that is almost unprecedented, at least in the last 30 years when you look at the extent and the nature of the reforms in this legislation. I thank the majority leader, Senator McConnell, for his commitment to resuming regular order. Under Senator McConnell's leadership, the Senate has been able to take up this critical national security legislation on time, allowing for thoughtful consideration of amendments. This is how the Senate should operate--regular order, on time, giving our military the certainty they need to plan and execute their missions. For 53 consecutive years, Congress has passed a National Defense Authorization Act. That is testimony to the vital importance of this legislation, which provides the necessary funding and authorities for our military to defend the Nation. But perhaps at no time in the last half century has this legislation ever been so critical. Over the past few months, the Senate Armed Services Committee has received testimony from many of America's most respected statesmen, thinkers, and former military commanders. These leaders had a common warning, and that warning is clear: America is facing the most diverse and complex array of crises since the Second World War. I won't go into all the different events that have taken place that authenticate that assertion by the most respected leaders who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. We have faced challenges before. We marshalled our power--both soft and hard power--to defend the rules-based national order that is the foundation of our prosperity and security. We have deterred aggression, defended allies, defeated adversaries, and built peace through strength. As we look at our challenges today, the question being asked all over the world by both friend and foe alike and the question we must answer now is, Are we equal to those challenges again? There is only so much one piece of legislation can do to answer that question, but the National Defense Authorization Act before the Senate today is a strong first step toward rising to the challenge of an increasingly dangerous world. This is an ambitious piece of legislation, but in the times we live, we cannot afford business as usual in the Department of Defense. To prepare our military to confront our present and future national security challenges, we must champion the cause of defense reform, rigorously root out Pentagon waste, and invest in modernization and next-generation technologies to maintain our military technological advantage. That is what this legislation is all about. It is a reform bill. It tackles acquisition reform, headquarters and management reform, military retirement reform, and personnel reform. The bill authorizes every dollar of the President's budget request of $612 billion but focuses these resources more directly on our warfighters. The Committee on Armed Services identified $10 billion of excess and unnecessary spending in the budget request, and we reinvested those savings in the military capabilities our troops need to succeed. We did all of this while upholding our commitments to our servicemembers, retirees, and their families. My friends, America's military technological advantage is eroding-- and eroding fast. One of the primary causes of this is a broken Defense Acquisition System that takes too long, costs too much, and wastes billions of dollars--often on weapons programs that never become operational and with no one ever being held responsible. That is why this legislation includes the most sweeping acquisition reforms in a generation. We put the services back into the acquisition process, create new mechanisms to ensure accountability for results, streamline regulation, and open the defense acquisition process to our Nation's innovators. This bill advances unprecedented reforms to our military retirement system. Under the current 70-year-old system, 83 percent of servicemembers leave the service without any retirement assets. This system excludes the vast majority of current servicemembers who will not complete 20 years of uniformed service, including many veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The NDAA creates a modernized retirement system and extends retirement benefits to the vast majority of servicemembers through a new plan, offering more value and choice. Under this new plan, 75 percent of servicemembers would get retirement benefits. This reform is estimated to save $15 billion a year in the out years. In addition to retirement reform, the NDAA focuses on improving the quality of life of our military servicemembers, retirees, and their families. It authorizes a 1.3-percent pay raise for members of the uniformed services at the grade of O-6 and below. The bill authorizes $30 million in support for schools serving military dependent children, including those with severe disabilities. It includes many provisions to improve the military health system and TRICARE. The NDAA allows a TRICARE beneficiary up to four urgent care visits without making them get a preauthorization and requires the Department of Defense to focus more on health care quality, patient safety, and beneficiary satisfaction by making them publish health outcome measures on their Web sites. The NDAA builds on military justice reforms of the past few years to prevent and respond to military sexual assault. It contains a number of provisions aimed at strengthening the authorities of Special Victims' Counsel to provide services to victims of sexual assault. The legislation also enhances confidential reporting options for victims of sexual assault and increases access to timely disclosure of certain materials and information in connection with the prosecution of offenses. On management reform, the NDAA ensures the Department of Defense and the military services are using precious defense dollars to fulfill their missions and defend the Nation, not expand their bloated staffs. While staff at Army Headquarters increased 60 percent over the past decade, the Army is now cutting brigade combat teams. The Air Force evaded mandated cuts to Headquarters personnel by creating two new Headquarters entities, while at the same time complaining it had insufficient personnel to maintain combat aircraft. The NDAA directs targeted reductions in Headquarters and administrative staff that would generate $1.7 billion in savings in just the next fiscal year. With these savings and billions more identified, this bill invests in providing critical military capabilities for our warfighters and meeting the unfunded priorities of our service chiefs and combatant commanders. Even as challenges to maritime security increase in the Middle East and the Western Pacific and pressures on our shipbuilding budget increase, the Navy remains well below its fleet size requirement of 306 ships. The NDAA directs savings identified in the budget request to accelerate Navy modernization and shipbuilding, to mitigate impacts of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine replacement, and to grow the Navy to meet rising threats. As adversaries seek to counter and thwart American military power, the NDAA looks to the future and invests in the technologies that will maintain America's military technological superiority. It provides $400 million in additional funding to support the so-called third offset strategy to outpace our emerging adversaries. The NDAA details robust assistance to our allies and partners as they confront urgent challenges. The legislation authorizes nearly $3.8 billion in support of the Afghan National Security Forces. After an overwhelming bipartisan vote on an amendment offered by Senator Feinstein and myself, the NDAA reaffirms the prohibition on torture and ensures that every U.S. Government agency always applies the same effective, humane interrogation standards as the U.S. military. Past interrogation policies compromised our values, stained our national honor, and did little practical good. This legislation provides greater assurances that never again will the United States follow that dark path of sacrificing our values for our short-term security needs. I thank Senator Feinstein for her hard work on this vitally important issue. Finally, this legislation contains a bipartisan compromise on how to address the challenge of the detention facility of Guantanamo Bay. President Obama has said from day one of his Presidency that he wants to close Guantanamo. But 6\1/2\ years into his Presidency, the administration has never provided a plan to do so. This legislation requires the administration to submit that plan. We are simply asking the executive branch to explain where it will hold those set for trial, how it will continue to detain dangerous terrorists pursuant to the laws of war, and how it will mitigate the risks of moving this population. If the administration can provide answers to these basic questions to the satisfaction of the American people and their elected representatives, then congressional restrictions on the movement of these detainees will be lifted and the plan can be implemented. If the Congress does not approve the plan, nothing would change. The ban on domestic transfers would stay in force, and the certification standards for foreign transfers included in the NDAA would remain. My friends, America has reached a key inflection point. The rules- based international order, which has been anchored by U.S. hard power for seven decades, is being seriously stressed, and with it the foundation of our security and prosperity. It does not have to be this way. We can choose a better future for ourselves, make the right decisions now, and set our Nation on a better course. That is what this legislation is all about--living up to our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense, increasing the effectiveness of our military, and restoring America's global leadership. This legislation is a small step towards accomplishing these goals, but it is an important step we can take right now, together. We owe the brave men and women in uniform nothing less. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I will not object.

Mr. McCAIN. I am aware that the Senator from Oklahoma feels very strongly about this amendment. We discussed it and voted on it in the committee. At that time, I told the Senator from Oklahoma--who is my friend, for many years--that I would do what I could to see that he got a vote before the entire Senate. I am in disagreement with his amendment, but I want to respect his right to offer it. So--and I appreciate less than you know his tenacity--Mr. President, I will not object.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to make a point of order against all the pending nongermane amendments en bloc.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the following amendments are not germane: amendments Nos. 1564, 1825, 1559, 1543, 1645, and 1486.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to tell my colleagues that I think we are winding down here. We have several other issues to address, but I think it is very possible that we could see the end here for final passage of the bill. There are still some issues that need to be resolved, but I am grateful for the progress all of my colleagues have made on both sides of the aisle. I would like to call up and speak briefly on McCain amendment No. 1482. This amendment would prohibit the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military department from funding or conducting medical research or development projects unless the Secretary determines that the research or project is designed to protect, enhance, or restore the health and safety of members of the Armed Forces through phases of deployment, combat, medical recovery, and rehabilitation. I will not seek a vote on this amendment, but I will say that it is an issue which must be addressed if we are going to spend American tax dollars on defending this Nation, the security, and the men and women who are serving. What I am going to show my colleagues is what happens with almost any bad deal around here, and that is the incredible increase in congressionally directed spending on medical research which is on the Department of Defense authorization bill--not on the Health and Human Services appropriations but on Defense. When we are cutting defense, when we are experiencing all the bad results of sequestration, we continue to grow to nearly $1 billion in medical research that has nothing to do with defense. I am all for medical research. I am all in. The National Institutes of Health is doing great things. I am all for it. But when we take it out of defense spending rather than what it should be taken out of, which is Health and Human Services, then I object to that. I am aware of the outcry that has taken place at these various organizations which are dedicated to improving the health of Americans, and so therefore of course I am not subjecting it to a vote. But it is outrageous that this has gone up to nearly $1 billion in spending that is taken out of the Department of Defense. My friends, what it is, is the Willie Sutton syndrome. When the famous bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he said, ``Because that's where the money is.'' So this medical research, which has nothing to do with defense, comes out of the Department of Defense. It is wrong, and it needs to stop, as every scarce dollar that is earmarked for defense must go to the defense of this Nation. I know what the response is going to be: Oh my God, McCain, you want to take money away from--fill in the blank. No, I am not asking to take money from any medical research; I am asking that it be put where it belongs, and that is not in the Department of Defense. It is not about disputing the great value of much of the medical research Congress and America's taxpayers make possible. I will match my record on support for medical research with anyone's. Any person who has reached my advanced age likely has some firsthand experience with the miracles of modern medicine and gratitude for all who support it. Much of the medical research for which Congress appropriates money each year helps to extend and improve the lives of many Americans. This amendment is not about the value of medical research or whether Congress should support it. Immediately I will hear the response waiting now: Oh, McCain, you want to cut very beneficial research that helps the lives of Americans. No. No, I do not. I want it appropriated from the appropriate appropriations bill, not from defense. This amendment is absolutely about what departments and agencies of our government should be funding what kinds of medical research and specifically what the proper role of the Department of Defense is in this work. Over the past 20 years, Congress has added billions of dollars to the Department of Defense's medical research portfolio for disease research that has nothing to do with defense. Since 1992, Congress has appropriated almost $10 billion for medical research in the Department of Defense's Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs, and only about $2.4 billion of that $10 billion was for research that could be considered in any way relevant to the military. To be sure, the Department of Defense has a proper and vital role to play in medical research that benefits the unique work of our men and women in uniform in areas such as prosthetics, traumatic brain injury, and spinal cord injury, among others. However, through years of congressionally directed spending, the DOD medical research program has been used to fund research on breast cancer, prostrate cancer, lung cancer, genetic disorders such as muscular dystrophy, and even mad cow disease. In other words, over the last 2 decades, in a time of war and fiscal challenge, even despite sequestration, Congress has appropriated $7.3 billion for medical research that is totally unrelated to the military--money that the Department of Defense did not request and our military did not need. This graph right behind me shows the explosive growth that has occurred in this program since 1992. At that time, in 1992, Congress had funded one research project for breast cancer. Over time, that has now grown to 30 separate medical research projects funded by the Congress. Funding has increased by almost 4,000 percent, from $25 million in 1992 to almost $1 billion last year. I will repeat that for the benefit of my colleagues. Spending on medical research at DOD-- nearly 75 percent of which has nothing to do with the military--has grown 4,000 percent since 1992. Even the late Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens, under whose leadership the original funding for breast cancer was added, reversed course in 2006 because the money would be ``going to medical research instead of the needs of the military.'' During the floor debate on the annual Defense appropriations bill, Senator Stevens had this to say: We could not have any more money going out of the Defense bill to take care of medical research when medical research is basically a function of the NIH. . . . It is not our business. I confess, I am the one who made the first mistake years ago. I am the one who suggested that we include some money for breast cancer research. It was languishing at the time. . . . Since that time it has grown to $750 million . . . in the last bill we had, dealing with medical research that had nothing to do with the Department of Defense. My friends, when Senator Ted Stevens is saying that a congressionally directed spending program has gotten out of hand, we know there is a problem. Yet, despite the urgings of Senator Stevens in 2006, the problem has only gotten worse since then. Last year alone Congress appropriated $971.6 million for medical research programs that the Department of Defense did not request in its budget. More than $280 million of that money was appropriated for cancer research in the defense budget while six other Federal agencies spent more than $50 billion on cancer research in fiscal year 2015. I will put that in perspective. For the amount of money that Congress appropriated for medical research last year at the Department of Defense--again, most of which had nothing to do with the military and which the Department did not request--we could have bought 12 F-18 Superhornets, 2 littoral combat ships or roughly 1 Army brigade combat team. My friends, in these days of sequestration, that is not acceptable. Once again, I am sure every Member of this body agrees that this research is vitally important to Americans suffering from these diseases, to the families and friends who care for them, and to all of those who know the pain and grief of losing a loved one. But this research should not be funded by the Department of Defense. It belongs in civilian departments and agencies of our government. Appropriating money in this way only harms our national security by reducing the funding available for military-relevant medical research that helps protect service men and women on the battlefield and for military capabilities they desperately need to perform their missions. Furthermore, this kind of misguided spending only puts decisionmaking about medical research in the hands of lobbyists and politicians instead of medical experts where it belongs. So I say to my colleagues, what I had proposed and will not seek a vote on--because the result is very clear--is a commonsense amendment. It focuses the Department's research efforts on medical research that will lead to lifesaving advancements in battlefield medicine and new therapies for recovery and rehabilitation of servicemembers wounded both physically and mentally on the battlefield. It could finally begin the long overdue process of shifting the hundreds of millions of dollars of nonmilitary medical research spending out of the Department of Defense and into the appropriate civilian departments and agencies of our government. That is a change that needs to start now, and I hope my colleagues, especially my friends on the Appropriations Committee, will make that happen. I want to point out again that we started in fiscal year 1992 with $25 million. We are now up to nearly $1 trillion, and I am sure that the appropriators have an equal or like amount that they are proposing. I see that my colleague from Illinois is here on the floor, and I know he will defend with vigor, passion, love, and every emotion he has what we are doing because of those who are suffering from illnesses such as breast cancer and all of the other terrible things that afflict our society. I say to my friends who will come to the floor in a high dudgeon over what I am proposing: I am not saying that we should cut any of these programs--not a single one. We should probably increase them. But let's put them where they belong, and that is not in the Department of Defense. While I have the floor, I want to talk about some other issues. Former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates said in an interview over the weekend: What it feels like to me is really what the President said last week, which was a lack of strategy. Just adding a few hundred troops doing more of the same I think is not likely to make much of a difference. . . . We should have had a strategy a year ago. . . . And we have to be willing, if we think ISIS is truly a threat to the United States and to our interests, we have to be willing to put Americans at risk. That's just a fact of life. . . . [I]f the mission [President Obama] has set for the military is to degrade and destroy ISIS, the rules of engagement that he has imposed on them prevent them from achieving that mission. I don't know anyone who is more respected by both sides of the aisle and served Presidents of both parties in key administrative positions than Secretary of Defense Bob Gates. Quite often, I and my friend from South Carolina, Senator Graham, are accused of being biased and partisan and attacking the President and his strategies in a partisan fashion. I will remind my colleagues that in 2006 Senator Graham and I called for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense, who was then in a Republican administration. In 2006, we said: We are losing the war. In 2006, I had a spirited argument with then-General Dempsey--who was in charge of training the Iraqis and assured me everything was going fine--when I was showing him the facts when things were going to hell in a handbasket. So to somehow accuse me, Senator Graham, and others of making these comments about a feckless and without-foundation foreign policy that is allowing ISIS to succeed does not bear scrutiny. I agree with former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates when he says: ``What it feels like to me is really what the President said last week, which was a lack of a strategy.'' There is a lack of a strategy. I want to tell my colleagues that we will be having hearings when we get through with this bill, and we will try to figure out what the Congress and the American people should know about what is happening in the world, not just in the Middle East. Facts are stubborn things. The fact is we can knock off an ISIS or Al Qaeda leader, and we can trumpet that as a great victory and thank God that it has happened. But to think that really has a significant, long- term impact on the ability of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations to not reconstitute and continue their success, with occasional setbacks--which they are achieving and spreading that poison throughout the Middle East and the latest being Libya, aided and abetted in many cases by the Iranians--is obviously a fact that cannot be denied. For example USA Today reports: ``Death of al-Qaeda leader may benefit Islamic State.'' The U.S. missile strike that killed al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader is another in a string of devastating blows to the terrorist group's old-guard leadership that might inadvertently help a more brutal terror group: the Islamic State, analysts said. The Washington Post Editorial Board writes today: ``A dangerous mission in Libya requires a firm approach.'' The Washington Post editorial board, not known as a rightwing periodical, writes: It's good those two militants have been taken off the battlefield, but their elimination will not remedy the growing crises in Libya and Yemen. In that respect, the operations are another example of the limited benefits of President Obama's narrow approach to counterterrorism. The New York Times reports today: ``As Vladimir Putin Talks More Missiles and Might, Cost Tells Another Story.'' Reuters reports today: ``China gives more details on South China Sea facilities.'' This is very disturbing. I say to my colleagues and all of us-- whether we are members of the Intelligence Committee or members of the Armed Services Committee--that we must address this issue of cyber security. My friends, we just went through a long back-and-forth debate and discussion over whether we should restrict the kinds of telephone information and whether it be shared or not shared and who should store it and all of that. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday: ``Hackers Likely Stole Security-Clearance Information During Breach of Government Agencies.'' Hackers who raided the U.S. government's personnel office gained access to secret background investigations conducted on current and former employees, senior administration officials said Friday--an ominous development in the recent threat of federal data, one of the largest in history. The Washington Post editorial board writes today: ``A pathetic breach of responsibility on cybersecurity.'' [T]he breach of Office of Personnel Management networks this year . . . represents a failure of stewardship and a serious external threat. After the OPM suffered a cyberintrusion in 2014, its director, Katherine Archuleta, asked Congress in February for $26 million in additional funding for cybersecurity. She said the agency stores more personally identifiable information than almost any other in the government, including banking data for more than 2 million people and background investigations for more than 30 million, among them individuals being considered for military enlistment, federal job appointments and employment by federal contractors. ``It is imperative,'' Ms. Archuleta wrote, that . . . ``threats to identity theft, financial espionage, etc., are real, dynamic and must be averted.'' They were not averted. In April, the new breach was uncovered. Intruders had stolen the names, Social Security numbers, pay history, health records and other data of some 4.2 million current and former federal workers. It seems to us that just slamming doors and building more firewalls may be an insufficient response to an assault of this magnitude. An essential aspect of deterrence is the credible threat of retaliation. Why do I quote from that? It is because every time we ask a question as to what the policy is, whether it is strictly defensive against a cyber attack or whether offensive in order to prevent one, the policy has ``not been determined.'' I say we have to address this issue. First of all, we have to have an administration policy or that policy somehow may be developed in the Congress, which is not the right way to do it, obviously. So I intend to work with Senator Burr, Senator Feinstein, Senator Reed, and others in holding hearings and figuring out what we need to do because this is a serious threat in many respects that we have faced in recent times. Finally, I wish to mention this: ``Former CIA Chief Says Government Data Breach Could Help China Recruit Spies.'' Retired Gen. Michael Hayden, who once led the National Security Agency and later the Central Intelligence Agency, said the threat of millions of U.S. Government personnel records could allow China to recruit U.S. officials as spies. The general said: This is a tremendously big deal. My deepest emotion is embarrassment. He said the personnel records were a ``legitimate foreign intelligence target.'' He continued: To grab the equivalent in the Chinese system, I would not have thought twice. I would not have asked permission . . . This is not ``shame on China.'' This is ``shame on us'' for not protecting that kind of information. So I urge my colleagues to understand that this new issue of cyber security is an area which the United States of America, in the view of many experts, does not have a significant advantage. It is an area where, in some respects, we may even be at a disadvantage, if we look at the extraordinary events that have taken place in the issue of cyber security. The latest information, of course, of 4 million people has to get our attention. It has to get the attention of the administration. We need to work together. I stand ready--and I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do as well--to sit down and come up with some policies and then implement those policies into ways of combating this new form of warfare we call cyber. Again, I anticipate the comments of my friend from Illinois who will vigorously defend all of the research that is done in medical research. I wish to point out, again, that I am not in opposition to one single dime of any kind of medical research. I say it is coming out of the wrong place. We cannot make a logical argument that this belongs in the Department of Defense. Some of it does, and I have pointed that out. The majority of it belongs with other agencies. When we are facing sequestration and when we are cutting our national security to the bone, according to our military leaders who have said that continued sequestration puts the lives of the men and women who are serving in the military in danger, we cannot afford another $1 billion to be spent on medical research. We want the money spent on medical research. We want it spent from the right place. I look forward to addressing the remaining amendments with my colleague and friend from Rhode Island. Hopefully, we can wrap up the Defense authorization bill sometime very soon. Then we can move on to conference and then bring the bill back after the conference to the floor of the Senate so we can carry out our first and most urgent responsibility; that is, the security of the Nation and men and women who defend it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.