John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Good.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments to call up my amendment No. 360.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am sure the Senator from Oregon is right. We can do much better. We sure as hell didn't do any better for the last 6 years. Sequestration Mr. President, I wish to talk for a few minutes--and I have a couple of my colleagues waiting, so I won't take as long as perhaps I would-- about sequestration. Sequestration was a poison pill that originally was designed to force Republicans and Democrats to sit down together and reach a bargain that would entail increasing some revenues and also budget cuts. And the looming axe that would fall out there was sequestration, which was believed at the time that because sequestration was so terrible it would force the two parties together to come to an agreement. Well, we know they never did, and we know now, ever since 2011, we have been living with sequestration. While we have been living with sequestration, the world has turned into a place of enormous turmoil and threats to the security of our Nation, which has escalated dramatically in those intervening years. At some point, I would like to come to the floor, maybe later, showing the world in 2011 and the world in 2015. Thanks to a feckless foreign policy, leading from behind and abandoning our allies, this administration has caused the world to be in more turmoil and not in just the opinion of this Senator. Every witness before our Committee on Armed Services has agreed on one thing. These witnesses have been Madeleine Albright, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and I could go on and on. We have had the smartest minds in America before our committee and every one of them has said exactly the same thing, no matter whether they served under Republican or Democratic administrations, they said they have never seen the world in more turmoil. So sequestration, if there ever was a reason for it, is long gone. The fact is not only are we not going to be able to defend this Nation, but we are going to put American lives at risk. That is not the opinion of this Senator from Arizona, it is the opinion of every one of our service leaders who have, again, been before our committee. So now we are not repealing sequestration, but we have this--and it is a gimmick--overseas contingency operations, which was not designed for this but is now a way of increasing our spending on defense. I would much rather have had us face the issues square head-on and increase our defense spending in the normal way in the budgetary process. That didn't happen. So now as we begin our votes on the budget, I am faced with two choices, and this body is faced with two choices: either the increases in overseas contingency operations or go back to sequestration. Those numbers are not acceptable. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to go ahead and pass this budget and give our military what they need. In fact, they need more than what is in the budget before us, but at least it is some ability to address the challenges to our Nation. I just want to mention we are not only talking about the defense of our Nation, we are talking about the lives of the men and women who are serving in the military. In the view of our military commanders, their lives are being put at risk. I don't know how anyone in this body, no matter how they feel about defense, could vote in a way that would put the lives of the men and women serving in the military at greater risk. I don't know how anyone would do that. All four service chiefs agreed, during questioning from Senator King of Maine, that ``American lives are being put at risk.'' The Secretary of Defense testified before the committee, ``Sequestration threatens our military's readiness, the size of our warfighting forces, the capabilities of our air-naval fleets, and ultimately the lives of our men and women in uniform.'' The National Defense Panel, put together with some of the brightest minds in America, said unless sequestration is reversed, ``the United States could find itself in a position where it must either abandon an important national interest or enter a conflict for which it is not fully prepared.'' I don't know anybody who is more respected than Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft by all, and he said: Absolutely, I would [repeal sequestration]. It is a terrible way to determine force structure strategy, or anything like it. It's undermining our ability to do what we need to do to retain . . . alert for the contingencies of the world. General James Mattis: ``No foe in the field can [wreak] such havoc on our security that mindless sequestration is achieving.'' General Jack Keane: ``Sequestration is not only irresponsible, in the face of emerging challenges, it is downright reckless.'' GEN Ray Odierno said the following: Sequestration is the single greatest barrier to the effectiveness of our Armed Forces--to its Training, Readiness, and Modernization. I assure you that ending sequestration is the most prudent measure we can take for ensuring that our military is able to meet the demands of global security now and in the future. General Odierno went on to say: The choices we must make to meet sequestration-level funding are forcing us to reduce our Army to a size and with limited capabilities that I am not comfortable with. If we follow this path to its end, we will find a hollow Army. If we do not have the resources to train and equip the force, our Soldiers, our young men and women, are the ones who will pay the price, potentially with their lives. That is from the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. The young men and women are the ones who will pay the price, potentially with their lives. Gen. Mark Welsh, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, said: ``The vulnerabilities sequestration introduces into our force will encourage our adversaries, worry our allies, limit the number of concurrent operations we can conduct, and increase risk to the men and women who fight America's next war.'' Secretary of State George Shultz, one of the most revered men in America, had this to say: ``Sequestration seems to me like legislative insanity.'' Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: ``I'm very concerned about sequestration and the deep cuts that have been taken . . . I think it jeopardizes America's military reach.'' The Director of National Intelligence said: . . . just based on my best professional judgment and having served in this business for a long time I'm very concerned about it. And if we revert to sequestration in 2016, the damage to the intelligence community will be quite profound. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: In an age when we are less certain about what will happen next, but quite certain it will happen more quickly, we will be further away and less ready than we need to be. Simply stated, sequestration will result in a dramatic change in how we protect our nation and how we promote our national interests. Lt. Gen. John Kelly, the commander of U.S. Southern Command: If sequestration returns in FY16, our ability to support national security objectives, including conducting many of our essential missions, will be significantly undermined. . . . . I would tell you in Latin America, in Southern Command, [sequestration] will be, just simply put, a catastrophe. It will essentially put me out of business. The commander of our Southern Command, who is responsible for our Southern Hemisphere, goes on to say: If sequestrations happen, I will be down to maybe one Coast Guard, maybe two Coast Guard cutters. That means of the 158 [metric] tons [of cocaine] I would expect to get this year, I probably if I'm lucky will get 20 tons. Admiral William Gortney, Commander of the Northern Command: ``Sequestration targets both current and future readiness and risks a hollow force undertrained and underprepared for today's emerging threats.'' My friends, I will come to the floor one more time with a map--a map of the Middle East and a map of other parts of the world where the United States is under almost unprecedented threat. We are faced with the prospect of threats to the United States of America and the men and women who are serving it in uniform. We are moving forward with OCO, which is very unsatisfactory but a way through this at least for 1 year. I would point out this is only for 1 year and that the ability of the Defense Department to plan is in great jeopardy. This makes it incredibly difficult, but we are where we are. I understand, as do my friends on both sides of the aisle, that we need to increase defense spending and that there are a lot of needs in the country. All of them are serious and compelling, but I don't know anything more compelling right now than what our military leaders have told us, which is that we are putting the lives of the men and women serving in uniform at risk. So I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as dire as the deficit is, and it is a challenge to the future of our children as well, right now we are facing a far greater risk. I hope we can pass this budget with the OCO in it and then sit down and seriously work to repeal this Damocles sword called sequestration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the quotes I read from earlier.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator from South Carolina comes to the floor, which I believe he will, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on Sunday, I was in the city of Chicago. I had been invited by the Ukrainian-American community to speak to a large gathering. There are many Ukrainian Americans who have chosen the city of Chicago to live in and work. They have made an enormous contribution to the city and to the State of Illinois. I spoke to several hundred, some of whom had not that long ago been in Ukraine. It was very moving because these people who love America but also love the country of their birth or origin are now watching their country being dismembered by Vladimir Putin and the Russians and watching the United States of America fail to help them, literally, at all. In case my colleagues have forgotten, the United States of America, this President, has refused to provide not only defensive weapons to Ukraine--I would remind you what we all know; that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of Russian troops inside of eastern Ukraine, Russian weapons. Remember, it was Russian equipment--if not Russians themselves--that shot down the Malaysian jetliner, and we have sat by and watched it on the delusionary view of the President of the United States that he doesn't want to ``provoke Vladimir Putin.'' The Senator from South Carolina and I predicted every single move Vladimir Putin has taken. By the way, I am pleased to be again sanctioned by Vladimir Putin. I wear it as a badge of honor. So we have watched as they went into Crimea, in order that Vladimir Putin could have the naval base at Sevastopol, then into eastern Ukraine. Then a Malaysian airliner was shot down. We all seem to have forgotten about that. Sanctions have been imposed on Vladimir Putin, none of which have had any significant effect, and the aggression continues. Now there is a pause while more Russian equipment comes into eastern Ukraine, and his next target will be the city of Mariupol so he can complete his land bridge ambition to Crimea. Right now, he is having to resupply Crimea from air and sea, which is very expensive, but Mariupol will be next. Then, depending on whether he gets away with it, the pressure will increase on Moldova, and pressures are already being exerted on the Baltic countries as well. Our European friends, with the leadership of the United States of America, is conducting itself in the finest tradition of Neville Chamberlain. It was in the 1930s when we watched Hitler go into one area of another, usually in the name of ``German-speaking peoples.'' So I must say the people--the wonderful Ukrainian-American group I spoke to on Saturday--is puzzled, sad, and angry that the United States of America will not even give them weapons with which to defend themselves. We have given them, my dear friends, MREs. We have gone from the West and democracy's arsenal to the West's linen closet. So I say, again, this is a shameful chapter in American history. It is shameful. It is shameful we will not at least provide these people with weapons to defend themselves as they watch for the first time in 70 years a European nation being dismembered. Have no doubt about Vladimir Putin's ambitions, it is the restoration of the Russian Empire, and no one should have any illusions about that. Unless a stand is taken, day after day, week after week, Vladimir Putin, diverting attention from his economic troubles, will continue to commit aggression until he feels he has restored the old Russian Empire. We are writing a shameful chapter in American history, the nation that used to stand up for people who were struggling for freedom and assist them. I remind my colleagues that the Ukrainians are not asking for a single American boot on the ground, they are just asking for weapons to defend themselves. Isn't that shameful. Middle East Mr. President, I wish to speak about the Middle East. First, let me remind you of a couple of comments in recent months that the President of the United States has made, one concerning ISIS, which has now moved into Africa, Libya, and Tunisia--recent attacks. Of course, we know about their caliphate that they have set up in Iraq and Syria. Boko Haram has declared their allegiance. They are spreading like an epidemic. The President of the United States said, speaking of ISIS: ``The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant.'' I say to my colleagues, I am not making that up. That is what the President of the United States said about ISIS. Then, he said recently: Over the last several years, we have consistently taken the fight to terrorists who threaten our country. We have targeted al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen-- In Yemen-- and recently eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in Somalia. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years. Is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years. Again, I tell my colleagues, I am not making this up. Then, of course, Iran. The White House has repeatedly slammed the Israeli Prime Minister for comments made during an election campaign, statements he has clarified or apologized for. But the White House continues to threaten a reassessment of American policy toward Israel because ``words matter.'' That is what the White House spokesman said--``words matter.'' But when Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei chanted ``Death to America'' in a recent address, the White House dismissed the remarks as aimed at a domestic, political audience. General Petraeus said on March 20: ``The Islamic State isn't our biggest problem in Iraq.'' Our biggest problem in Iraq, according to General Petraeus, is Iran. He is right. ISIS is a terrible and awful disease that is afflicting the Middle East and may in Africa. But when you look at what the Iranians are doing, they are in Sanaa in Yemen, they are in Baghdad, they are in Beirut, and they are in Damascus. Today, as we speak, Mr. Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, is leading the fight in Tikrit. This is the same head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who sent thousands of copper- tipped IEDs into Iraq while our troops were there fighting and killed hundreds--hundreds--of American soldiers and marines, while we watch them retake the city of Tikrit, and then we will get the credit with the Iraqi people. So David Petraeus, in answer to the question, ``You have had some interaction with Qasem Soleimani in the past. Could you tell us about those,'' Petraeus talks about those he met with: When I met with the senior Iraqi, he conveyed the message: ``General Petraeus, you should be aware that I, Qasem Soleimani, control Iran's policy for Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Afghanistan.'' That is what Soleimani claimed. It was probably not true at the time, but there is very little doubt that Soleimani and the Iranians are on the move. Our Arab friends, whether they be the Saudis, the UAE or many others, are keenly aware of this movement and success of the Iranians. Very frankly, they do not understand this Faustian bargain that is now being attempted to be concluded by this administration and the Iranians in the form of a nuclear agreement, somehow thinking that if there is this nuclear agreement--and I am not on the floor today to talk about it--that somehow there will be a whole new relationship with Iran, the same people who recently said: ``Death to Israel.'' So you can understand why our friends in the Middle East and the Sunni-Arab countries are finding their own way, developing their own strategy, and have no confidence in the United States of America. Israel Lately, there has been a lot of pressure on Israel as a result of the only free and fair election that you will see take place in that entire part of the world. There has been a harsh criticism of the things Prime Minister Netanyahu said during that campaign. I point out to my colleagues sometimes things are said in campaigns that maybe we say in the heat of the campaign and maybe it is OK if we apologize. Today, one of the most astute observers, in my view, Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal, had some advice for the Israelis. From his article in this morning's Wall Street Journal entitled ``The Orwellian Obama Presidency'': Here is my advice to the Israeli government, along with every other country being treated disdainfully by this crass administration: Repay contempt with contempt. Mr. Obama plays to classic bully type. He is abusive and surly only toward those he feels are either too weak, or too polite, to hit back. The Saudis figured that out in 2013, after Mr. Obama failed to honor his promises on Syria; they turned down a seat on the security council, spoke openly about acquiring nuclear weapons from Pakistan, and tanked the price of oil, mainly as a weapon against Iran. Now Mr. Obama is nothing if not solicitous of the Saudi Highnesses. The Israelis will need to chart their own path of resistance. On the Iranian nuclear deal, they may have to go rogue. Let's hope their warnings have not been mere bluffs. Israel survived its first 19 years without meaningful U.S. patronage. For now, all it has to do is get through the next 22, admittedly long, months. I note the presence of my colleague from South Carolina, and I guess my question to him is: How in the world do we justify this delusionary idea that somehow an agreement with Iran on nuclear weapons--and I am not asking to go into the details of it now, because my colleague and I are in agreement that it is an agreement, as Henry Kissinger described, that was once designed to eliminate nuclear weapons and is now designed to delay Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons--how do we translate that into believing that people who chant ``Death to America'' are going to be our friends, particularly in light of their aggression throughout the region and their successful movement in these parts of the world?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to address the Senate as in morning business.

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

Mr. McCAIN. I would respond to my friend, I wish the President of the United States, who issued some comment to the Iranian people about the necessity of a nuclear agreement, would have spoken up in 2009 when thousands and thousands of Iranians were on the streets in Tehran protesting a corrupt election and wanting freedom and he refused. They were chanting ``Obama, Obama, are you with us or are you with them?'' And he refused to speak out on their behalf. That is when he should have spoken up to the Iranian people. I would also ask my friend: Is there anyone in Iran who is free to speak up? You either get killed or put in prison if you speak up. So my question is: Who was the President of the United States speaking to with those remarks?

Mr. McCAIN. Not any who are alive or out of prison. I am sure there are many moderate voices in the Ayatollah's prisons throughout Iran by the tens of thousands. But I would also ask my colleague: Is it not true that every manifestation of Iranian behavior--whether it be in Baghdad, where they now have significant control; in Beirut, where Hezbollah basically has control of the country; in Damascus--Bashir Assad would not be alive today or in Syria today if it hadn't been for the Iranians flying in hundreds of tons of equipment, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and bringing Hezbollah out of Lebanon and into Syria. And now we see Soleimani, the leader liberating Tikrit, getting all the publicity. And the people of Iraq, naturally, are thanking him for freeing Tikrit from the forces of ISIS. One other comment. I know other colleagues are on the floor, but David Petraeus, probably the most brilliant military officer I have ever had the honor of knowing, made a very interesting comment in an interview the other day and I would like my colleague's comment on it. He said the major threat in the Middle East and in the world today is not ISIS. It is not ISIS. He said it was Iran. I think when we look at a map and we see where the Iranians are now in control, we have to give great credence to General Petraeus's assessment. Would my colleague agree?

Mr. McCAIN. And responsible for the deaths of hundreds and hundreds of American marines and soldiers. What do we tell their mothers?

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Wall Street Journal article entitled ``The Orwellian Obama Presidency,'' by Bret Stephens.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleagues for their patience. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague.

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 to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to address a very serious accusation leveled yesterday against Republican Members of this body by the Democratic whip, the Senator from Illinois. I do so with some regret. The Senator from Illinois and I have been friends for many years. We served in the House together and here in this body, and we have worked together. That is why I was so surprised and disappointed in the comments he made yesterday on the floor of the Senate--comments that are totally inappropriate to be made on the floor of the Senate. My colleague from Illinois said: The Republican majority leader announced . . . that he was going to hold this nomination of Loretta Lynch until the bill which is pending before the Senate passes, whenever that may be. Then he went on to say: So Loretta Lynch, the first African-American woman nominated to be Attorney General, is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the Senate calendar. That is unfair. It is unjust. It is beneath the decorum and dignity of the U.S. Senate. What is beneath the decorum and dignity of the U.S. Senate, I would say to the Senator from Illinois, is for him to come to this floor and use that imagery and suggest that racist tactics are being employed to delay Ms. Lynch's confirmation vote. Such inflammatory rhetoric has no place in this body and serves no purpose other than to further divide us. Perhaps my colleagues, and the Senator from Illinois in particular, need to be reminded of their own record when it comes to the treatment of African-American women whose nominations were before this body. In 2003, Janice Rogers Brown--an African American--was nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia--a court that had never included an African-American woman judge. The Senator from Illinois voted to filibuster her nomination in 2003 and again in 2005. When she was finally confirmed, after waiting 684 days, the Senator from Illinois voted against the historic nomination. I would never suggest--even with veiled rhetoric--that Judge Rogers Brown's race was the reason for the opposition to her nomination by the Senator from Illinois. And he should extend, I say to my colleague from Illinois, that same courtesy to me and my colleagues. I would also like to remind the Senator from Illinois about how we were able to fill vacancies in the U.S. District Court of Arizona last year--effectively alleviating a judicial emergency. With tremendous bipartisan support of the nomination of Senator Flake and myself, we confirmed a diverse and historic slate of six nominees which included an Hispanic, an African American, and the first Native American woman ever to serve on the Federal bench. But their race had nothing to do with their successful confirmations, just as the race of Ms. Lynch should have no impact on her consideration in this body. Those six judges were approved by this body because each of them had shown a commitment to justice, public service, and the people of Arizona. Each had also demonstrated the judicial temperament and the professional demeanor necessary to serve with integrity. I further point out to the Senator from Illinois that at no time has the majority leader ever indicated that he would not bring the Lynch nomination to the floor; in fact, the opposite is true. We have made it very clear time and again that we will consider the Lynch nomination once we have disposed of the bipartisan trafficking bill. Had the Senator from Illinois and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not filibustered this bill over a manufactured crisis, we could have considered the Lynch nomination this week. They chose otherwise. I deeply regret that the Senator from Illinois chose to come to the floor yesterday and question the integrity and motivation of myself and my Republican colleagues. It was offensive and unnecessary. I think he owes this body, Ms. Lynch, and all Americans, an apology. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate in morning business and to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to make reference to the famous letter by Senator Cotton to the Iranians conveying to them the realities of the U.S. Constitution and the situation as it will prevail, hopefully, and that is that the Congress of the United States must ratify any agreement between the United States and Iran. Anybody who says we shouldn't ignores history and ignores the impact of this treaty. I signed that letter, and I believe it is a direct result of the President's statement that he would veto any role the U.S. Congress should play in the ratification or nonratification of a pending agreement. That is what triggered the letter from Senator Cotton, and that is why I stand by it. Seventy-one percent of Americans believe negotiation with Tehran will not make a difference in preventing Iran from producing nuclear weapons, and 71 percent of the American people are right. Now I wish to speak with my friend from South Carolina about the situation in Iraq today--specifically, the role Iran is playing and, even more specifically, the combat that is taking place around the city of Tikrit. Tikrit is the hometown of Saddam Hussein. Tikrit is a Sunni stronghold. Tikrit is now under attack--the ISIS people who are occupying it--by Shia militia, including, specifically, the Badr brigades, and they are led and trained by Iranians. An individual named Soleimani, who is the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, is now the most visible leader. Soleimani is the same guy who sent copper- tipped IEDs into Iraq which killed hundreds of American soldiers and marines. We now are somehow accommodating the individual who is responsible for the deaths of brave young Americans. That is not only unbelievable, it is totally unacceptable. The question is, When these Shia militias get into Tikrit, how are they going to behave? There are well-documented human rights abuses by these Shia militias. Again, these are the same Badr brigades that we fought against in the Battle of Sadr City during the surge. And now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff said in January: ``As long as the Iraqi government remains committed to inclusivity of all the various groups inside the country, then I think Iranian influence will be positive.'' I am not making that up. There is an AP story today that I wish to quote from entitled ``Little progress in key plank of Obama anti-IS struggle.'' Instead of reaching out for Sunnis, the Iraqi government has bolstered its already close ties to Iran and to Iranian- backed Shiite militias that have been credibly accused of massacring Sunnis, U.S. officials acknowledge. The Iraqi military's reliance on Shiite militias this week to retake Tikrit, a Sunni stronghold, has complicated the prospects of political reconciliation, experts say. Human Rights Watch said in a March 4 report that it has documented ``numerous'' atrocities against Sunni civilians by the Shiite militias . . . ``They see it as a Persian invasion of the Sunni heartland,'' said John Maguire, a former CIA case officer with long Middle East experience who travels frequently to Iraq. I am interested in the reaction of my friend from South Carolina to this: After meeting with Abadi, Dempsey-- That is our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff-- told reporters he was given firm assurances that the Shiite- led government is committed to reconciling with the Sunnis. Asked in an interview whether he considered those assurances credible Dempsey said, ``They seemed credible today.'' Dempsey noted that during his helicopter flight over Baghdad, he saw worrisome signs of Iranian influence. He spotted a ``plethora of flags'' at checkpoints and elsewhere in the capital, ``only one of which happens to be the Iraqi flag,'' he said, alluding to the banners of Iranian-backed Shiite militias. Can we get real, I ask my friend from South Carolina, as to what is taking place? The Iranians are now in Sana'a, they are in Baghdad, they are in Beirut, they are in Damascus, and they are on the move. Meanwhile, this administration, this President, and this Secretary of State pursue the mirage of a nuclear agreement that will somehow change the entire equation. I would also be interested in the views of the Senator from South Carolina of what the Saudis are doing, which is accommodating in their own way and possibly making plans to acquire their own nuclear weapons along with other nations in the Middle East.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my friend if he recalls the recent testimony by Henry Kissinger, probably the most highly regarded individual in America today? He voiced his concern. His fundamental problem was that, as he put it, we have gone from negotiations to rid Iran from ever having the capability of developing nuclear weapons to delaying it. So that on its face--and again, I want to remind my friend from South Carolina that he and I and our beloved friend, former Member of this body, Joe Lieberman, made visit after visit to Baghdad and to Iraq. We probably were everywhere in that country on many occasions. And how well we remember the fight the surge brought on to bring stability to Iraq. It did bring stability. You remember the battle of Sadr City. Who was it that our forces, our young men and women, were fighting against, the Badr Brigades? Guess who is fighting in Tikrit today. The Badr Brigades. The Senator and I have been to Walter Reed and many other places like that and have seen our wounded. Wounded by what? By IEDs, the copper- tipped IEDs that Soleimani made sure came into Iraq, that would penetrate armor and wreak havoc and wounded so many and killed so many young Americans. It is now Soleimani who is visibly leading the fight in Tikrit. Strangely enough, our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saw so many flags--guess what--with the banners of the Iranian-backed Shia militias. I would ask my friend, isn't this in some ways a Greek tragedy? Isn't this in some ways a situation where we sacrifice so much? And thanks to the inspired, fantastic leadership of General Petraeus and Colonel McFarland and all of those individuals who fought so well and led so well, we had it won, it was stabilized. And now because of the President's decision not to leave a residual force, we are seeing capitals in the Middle East--whether it be Sana'a, Baghdad, Beirut, or Damascus--we are now seeing an overwhelming Iranian presence that is dedicated, among other things, to the extinction of the State of Israel.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I remind the Senator that it is the same German Foreign Minister who criticized us and sat by and watched the dismemberment of a European nation for the first time in 70 years; the same Foreign Minister who keeps threatening Vladimir Putin if he keeps this up, and Vladimir Putin continues his aggression and will continue his aggression as well. I can't give up the floor without mentioning, again, my sorrow at the passage of and murder of my friend, Boris Nemstov. The recent arrests by Vladimir Putin's crack law enforcement team is reminiscent--they rounded up some Chechens--of everybody's favorite film ``Casablanca'' where at the end, Claude Raine says, ``Round up the usual suspects.'' We have seen a scene from that movie again as the Russians have rounded up the usual suspects. Under this regime in Russia, we will never know who the murderers are of Boris Nemstov; and that, my friends, is a tragedy. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last week Senator Graham and I introduced a Senate resolution condemning the murder of my friend and a true Russian Patriot, Boris Nemtsov. The resolution calls upon the Russian Federation to support an independent investigation into Boris Nemtsov's murder and take immediate steps to end its suppression of free speech and justice. It also urges President Obama to continue to sanction human rights violators in the Russian Federation and to increase U.S. support to like-minded human rights activists in Russia. My friends, I was devastated to learn of Boris's murder in Moscow last month. My thoughts and prayers remain with his family and many friends in Russia and around the world. With his death, the struggle for free speech and human rights in Russia has suffered another shattering blow. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Boris Nemtsov was one of Russia's earliest and most vigorous economic and political reformers, a champion of liberalization and democracy. His leadership of Russia's laboratory of reform eventually brought him to Moscow, where he served as Deputy Prime Minister and was once a favorite for the Russian Presidency. But then Russia took a dark turn when Vladimir Putin entered the Kremlin. Boris was one of the first to warn of the coming Putin dictatorship, even when many of his fellow liberals could not see it. As Putin's grip on power tightened, Boris's hopes for a free, just, and economically vibrant Russia, at home and at peace in Europe, were dashed. Yet, even after multiple arrests and countless threats on his life, Boris never stopped fighting the corruption and lawlessness of the Putin regime, never stopped seeking to advance democracy, human rights, free speech, free market reforms, and the rule of law. In December 2011 Boris Nemtsov helped mobilize the largest anti- Kremlin demonstrations since the early 1990s, leading tens of thousands of Russians to march in protest of widespread fraud and corruption in the parliamentary elections. He stood up to harsh laws that vastly expanded the definition of ``treason,'' increased government control over the media, and limited the scope and activities of opposition parties and civil society organizations--laws that Vladimir Putin and his cronies have exploited to intimidate the Russian people into obedience. Shortly before his death, Boris Nemtsov was reportedly planning to release a report on Russia's military involvement in Ukraine. At the protest march scheduled 2 days after his murder, he was set to demand ``the immediate end to the war and any aggressive actions towards Ukraine.'' He investigated and saw through the fabricated rationalizations of Putin's war. Putin didn't invade Ukraine to protect Russian-speaking peoples or to establish a federal state. Putin didn't invade Ukraine because he is crazy or merely to reassert Russia's sphere of influence in the near abroad. Rather, Boris Nemtsov wrote that the goal of Putin's ``fratricidal war'' is the ``preservation of personal power and money at any cost,'' a ``cold strategy for lifelong despotism.'' Putin was willing to doom Russia to isolation and sanctions and to sink his country ``into lies, violence, obscurantism, and imperial hysteria'' for his own personal power and enrichment. As Boris Nemtsov knew, this is not Russia's war; this is not Ukraine's war; this is Vladimir Putin's war. That is why Boris Nemtsov's murder is not just a tragedy for the people of Russia but for the people of Ukraine. He was one of the few brave Russians who sought to pierce the veneer of Putin's cynical and false narrative that Russia was not at war in Ukraine. There are many who now believe that Boris is yet another casualty of that war. At the memorial march honoring his life in Moscow on Sunday, one woman held a sign that read ``The war killed Nemtsov.'' I had long been concerned about Boris's safety and said so publicly. I will never forget the last meeting we had in my office. I begged him to be careful, and Boris told me he would never give up the fight for freedom, human rights, and rule of law for his fellow Russians, even if it cost him his life. I am heartbroken that it has come to that. That Boris Nemtsov's murder occurred on a bridge in a shadow of the Kremlin in one of the most secure parts of the Russian capital raises serious questions about the circumstances of his killing and who was responsible. In KGB fashion, Vladimir Putin will round up all the usual suspects, but I fear we will never know who really pulled the trigger that night. Putin's farcical oversight of the investigation ensures that it will be a sham. We don't need any investigation to know who was responsible for Boris's murder. Vladimir Putin may not have ordered Boris's assassination, but perhaps what is most frightening about Putin's Russia is that he didn't need to. Boris is dead because of the culture of impunity that Vladimir Putin has created in Russia, where individuals are routinely persecuted and attacked for their beliefs, including by the Russian Government, and no one is ever held responsible. Sadly, Boris Nemtsov was not the first and certainly will not be the last victim of Putin's repression. The culture of impunity has steadily worsened, deepened by the increased surveillance and harassment of members of opposition and civil society groups, the ongoing detention of numerous political prisoners, and by the continued violent attacks on brave journalists who dare to publish the truth about official corruption and other state crimes in Russia. According to one news report, at least 23 journalists have been murdered in Russia for reporting on government criminality and abuse since Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000, along with several anti- Kremlin political activists. In only two of these cases have there been convictions. Igor Domnikov, a reporter who was writing about government corruption, was severely beaten in Moscow. He died 2 months later. Sergei Yushenkov, a leader of a Russian opposition party, was shot and killed at the entrance of his apartment building. At the time, he was serving on a commission investigating the Kremlin's potential role in the 1999 apartment bombings in Russia. Another member of that commission, a reporter who was investigating corruption in Russian law enforcement, was poisoned to death. American journalist Paul Klebnikov was investigating Russian Government connections to organized crime when he was shot to death in Moscow. Anna Politkovskaya, a journalist and human rights activist, was a fierce critic of Vladimir Putin's brutal war in Chechyna. She was murdered in the stairwell of her apartment building on Vladimir Putin's birthday in 2006. The lawyer who represented her family later survived a poisoning attempt. Former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko exposed the Putin regime's massive corruption, ties to organized crime, and involvement in assassination and murder. He was poisoned in 2006 with a radioactive isotope in a brazen act of nuclear terrorism. Ivan Safronov was investigating a secret sale of Russian missiles and fighter jets to Syria and Iran. He was pushed to his death from the window of his Moscow apartment. Sergei Magnitsky blew the whistle on tax fraud and large-scale theft by Russian Government officials. He was thrown into one of Russia's harshest prisons without trial, beaten and tortured, denied medical care, and died in excruciating pain. Even after his death, the Russian courts convicted him of tax evasion in a show trial. As Orwell once wrote, ``In a time of universal deceit--telling the truth is a revolutionary act.'' Russia has fewer and fewer revolutionaries, but Boris Nemtsov was certainly one of them. Boris told the truth and was willing to lay down his life for it. He told the truth about Putin's reign of terror and hatred. He told the truth about Putin's kleptocracy, rampant corruption, and systematic theft perpetrated against the Russian people. He told the truth about Putin's illegal invasion of the sovereign Nation of Ukraine and Russia's continued support for violence, instability, and terror. Boris told the truth, and we must honor his memory by speaking these same truths fearlessly. Our Nation and free people everywhere must draw strength from Boris's example and continue to resist Vladimir Putin's dark and dangerous view of the world. Last Sunday, over 50,000 Russians marched in tribute to Boris Nemtsov, still seeking, despite the odds, what a Russian poet once called the footprints of the forgotten truth. At a funeral on Tuesday, thousands more waited in line in the cold for more than 1 hour to pay Boris their respects. Finally, as the hearse carrying Boris Nemtsov pulled away, mourners tossed flowers and chanted: ``Russia will be free!'' As I remember my friend Boris Nemtsov, that is my most sincere hope and fervent prayer. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from Indiana for his ``Waste of the Week'' speech, although I wish it were the ``Waste of the Day'' event that we celebrate. But I wish to thank him for his steadfast and longstanding efforts at eliminating government waste and mismanagement. If we are going to convince the American people that we need to make significant sacrifices, we have to start with an efficient government that does not waste the taxpayers' dollars. So I thank my friend from Indiana. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cornyn for his important leadership on this issue. I thank Senator Klobuchar, whom I have enjoyed working with on a related bill, the Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking Act, which I hope will also be considered during the course of this debate. We must commit to eliminating all forms of modern-day slavery and human trafficking. These are horrendous crimes that undermine the most basic human right of freedom and sadly target the most vulnerable and at-risk individuals in our society. For too long we in the United States have assumed this is a problem for others but not for ourselves. We heard heartbreaking stories of the underground trafficking of humans but believed this was a tragedy unique to places in the world where a poor economy and weak rule of law allow vulnerable women and children to fall into these unspeakable circumstances. This is no longer the case. Reports and research have brought this crime out of the dark here at home, revealing that trafficking in humans is a reality in our own States and communities. Ignorance and denial are no longer options. I am proud to support the legislation we are considering today which would improve services and restitution available to victims of human trafficking. It would make changes to our criminal law to allow law enforcement to hold accountable those offenders who perpetrate these heinous crimes and also better protect those at risk of becoming victims. I am proud to say that my home State of Arizona has been a leader on this issue. In April 2013 then-Governor Jan Brewer launched a task force on human trafficking which brought together local policymakers, law enforcement, nonprofits, think tanks, and universities in Arizona to examine the issue and explore ways to reduce trafficking and protect victims. The work of this task force led to these results: In 2014 the Arizona Human Trafficking Council was established to build on the efforts of the task force in the longer term by improving the State's awareness of human trafficking, promoting cooperation among law enforcement, State agencies, and the community, and improving victims' services. The task force yielded legislative accomplishments. Based on recommendations of the task force, Arizona passed a law in April 2014 that increased penalties for traffickers, makes it easier for prosecutors to hold accountable those engaged in prostitution with a minor, and protects victims' identities in criminal proceedings. In an effort to equip those who are in a position to intervene, the members of the task force have worked to improve training for social workers, health care providers, and probation officers, among others. These efforts provide them with the knowledge and tools needed to stop this exploitation and connect victims with resources to help. I would be remiss if I failed to mention the hard work of my wife Cindy to bring attention to the suffering of those who are victims of human trafficking. She has dedicated herself to their cause, and through her service on both the Arizona Human Trafficking Task Force and Council as well as international efforts to combat trafficking, she has become a well-respected and persuasive voice on this vital issue, driving change both in Arizona and abroad. America's leadership furthering human rights around the world means that we must hold ourselves to the highest standards when basic human rights are being undermined right here. I am grateful for the Senate's action. We must commit to continued efforts to restoring the freedom of those caught in the horrors of modern slavery and eliminating this crime wherever it occurs. Finally, here in the Senate we have gridlock on numerous issues. There are differences of opinion and philosophies. How in the world have we got differences on an issue such as this? Is the issue of right to life or abortion such an overwhelming issue that we can't address an issue which is the most egregious crime against innocent women and children? This is really not an honorable time or a laudable time for the U.S. Senate. We should be taking up amendments and passing this legislation today. We are letting partisanship over an issue that has been discussed and debated--and will be many times in the future--prevent us from moving forward with this legislation. It is not honorable. It is not honorable for us to hold up this legislation because we have a difference on the issue of abortion. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, let's not let this issue prevent us from doing the right thing. I yield the floor.