John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record 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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed such time as I may consume as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, a lot of us are deeply concerned about the situation in the Middle East, in Ukraine, in China, to which we have paid very little attention to as they expand their territory. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there is a huge credibility gap. The Washington Post probably said it better than I probably could, and it is entitled ``A credibility gap,'' in the Washington Post, by Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor, February 22. He says: ``If his negotiators strike an agreement next month, we already know that it will be far from ideal,'' talking about the Iranian nuclear deal. He continues: The partisanship needs no explanation, but the record of foreign-policy assurances is worth recalling: This is very interesting and I think deserves the attention of all Americans. In 2011, when he decided to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq, Obama belittled worries that instability might result. Iraq and the United States would maintain ``a strong and enduring partnership,'' Obama said. Iraq would be ``stable, secure and self-reliant,'' and Iraqis would build a future ``worthy of their history as a cradle of civilization.'' Today [as we know] Iraq is in deep trouble, with a murderous ``caliphate'' occupying much of its territory and predatory Shiite militia roaming through much of the rest. The same year, Obama touted his bombing campaign in Libya as a model of U.S. intervention and promised, ``That's not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya.'' My friends, we all know what has happened in Libya and the reason is--despite what Senator Graham and our then-former colleague Senator Lieberman said--we had to do some things in Libya to make sure there was stability in Libya. Obama then walked away. Continuing from the article: Obama also said then, ``Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.'' That was before Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad's barrel bombs, systematic and well-documented prison torture and other depredations of civil war killed 200,000 of his compatriots, and drove millions more from their homes. In August 2011, Obama declared that Assad must ``step aside.'' In a background briefing a senior White House official added, ``We are certain Assad is on the way out.'' In August 2013 came Obama's statement that ``the worst chemical attack of the 21st century . . . must be confronted . . . I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime [military] targets.'' As a personal aside, the Senator from South Carolina came over to the White House, and the President of the United States assured us that he was going to take military action and we were going to degrade Bashar al-Assad and upgrade the Syrian Army, and, obviously, the article states that ``no military action was taken, and Assad remains in power.'' Defeating the Islamic State is one we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years--successful in Yemen and Somalia that we have pursued for years. Just last month in the State of the Union Address, President Obama presented his Ukraine policy as a triumph of ``. . . American strength and diplomacy. We are upholding the principle that bigger nations can't bully the small by opposing Russian aggression supporting Ukraine's democracy,'' he said. We all know. We have watched Ukrainians slaughtered, slaughtered with the most modern equipment that Vladimir Putin has. That great national bloodletting is going on, and we are watching, thanks to the assistance of the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France--in the finest traditions of Neville Chamberlain--we are standing by and watching that country be dismembered. What the Senator from South Carolina and I are trying to say is what General Keane said the other day: . . . al Qaeda and its affiliates exceeds Iran and is beginning to dominate multiple countries. In fact, al-Qaeda has grown fourfold in the last five years. Radical Islam is clearly on the rise, and I think our policy of disengaging from the Middle East has contributed to that rise. So there is no policy in Iraq, there is no policy in Syria, there is no combating or assisting even the Ukrainians as they attempt to defend themselves against the wholesale slaughter of their countrymen by Vladimir Putin. My friends, we have had ample testimony before the Armed Services Committee, people who served this country with distinction for many years--Republican and Democratic administrations. All of them have said they have never seen the world in more turmoil, and these things don't happen by accident. It is not like hurricanes or earthquakes, it is a matter of a failed, feckless foreign policy that began in 2009 and the chickens are coming home to roost. May I mention--my friend from South Carolina--this is where we are with the Islamic State. We are hearing from the administration, I believe, that we are gaining. Look at the Islamic State, January 10, of Syria in red--this is the Islamic State and contested places--and look at August 31. Obviously, there are significant gains. One more chart, please. Looking at this chart, these are the areas of all of that part of the world that are now controlled or under attack by ISIS, including, by the way, we now see ISIS gaining a foothold in Libya.

Mr. McCAIN. Before my colleague leaves Iraq, is it not true that the only real fighting being done now is the Peshmerga Kurds but also the Shia militia, who are inflicting human rights violations on the Sunni, and the same people we fought against during the surge that my colleague talked about before, which is Iranian backed and Iranian trained?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the patience of my friend and colleague from the State of Texas. It is with a heavy heart that we see the events transpiring according to this chart. It is with a heavy heart that we see our friends in Ukraine, who only want to be like us, being slaughtered, and we are refusing to assist them. I have assured them that I will never give up--ever--until we see a free, prosperous, democratic Ukraine which is part of the community of nations, which we would admire, and in which we include them. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I just mention to my colleague--and it has been made perhaps larger than it should have been, with all of the crises and the tragedies that are transpiring, but the President of the United States refuses to refer to this as radical Islam. Why that is is hard to understand because it is clearly radical Islam. It is a perversion of an honorable religion, but everything they are doing is based on their perverted interpretation of the Koran. They are Islamic. While we respect the religion and we respect the people, we don't respect radical Islam and we have to recognize it for what it is. Let me read this, from February 24: Scores of Syrian Christians Kidnapped by Islamic State-- Islamic State militants swept into several of Assyrian Christian villages in northeastern Syria in recent days, taking scores of hostages, including both civilians and fighters, according to numerous interviews with residents. . . . The attacks have displaced hundreds of families and sharpened Middle Eastern Christians' fears of the Islamic State. Which the President of the United States refuses to recognize as radical Islam. When you don't even recognize it or identify it for what it is, how in the world are you going to be able to combat it? Finally, I would say to my friend one more time, if he would respond, that the Ukrainians wanted to defend themselves. One of the richest and proudest aspects of American history is that we have helped people who are struggling for freedom, whether it be in Afghanistan after Russia's invasion or others. And others have helped us, going all the way back to our Revolution when the French and Polish and others came in and helped us. How can we rationalize our failure to give them weapons to defend themselves by saying: Well, they can't beat the Russians anyway. Why don't we listen to their pleas for help? Why don't we listen to their cries? Why don't we listen to the fact they have lost 5,000; that right now the most sophisticated weaponry the Russians provided these ``separatists'' is being used to slaughter them? To me it is the most unbelievable view, that somehow we don't want to provoke Vladimir Putin, who has taken Crimea--they have written that off--shot down an airplane, at least with Russian equipment; moved and dislocated eastern Ukraine; and has caused an economic crisis. And we don't want to provoke Vladimir Putin? It is staggering.

Mr. McCAIN. That included the State of Crimea as part of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article titled ``Credibility Gap'' from the Washington Post and also the International New York Times article ``Scores of Syrian Christians Kidnapped by Islamic State'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for 5 minutes subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the rules governing the procedures of the Committee on Armed Services have not changed for the 114th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Reed, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the committee rules.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to join my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, in supporting the nomination of Dr. Ash Carter to be Secretary of Defense. I am confident Senator Reed and I feel we have had a very good nomination hearing and that Dr. Carter is qualified to be the Secretary of Defense. I have known Dr. Carter for many years during his lengthy service in Washington. He is one of America's most experienced defense professionals, respected by Republicans and Democrats alike. He has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, and most recently as Deputy Secretary of Defense. In these positions, I have known him to be an honest, hard-working, and committed public servant. I have had the opportunity to work together with Dr. Carter on several issues of shared concern, especially trying to reform the Defense Acquisition System, improving financial management of the Department, and repealing and rolling back sequestration. I was also pleased to hear Dr. Carter explain his views on a number of critical national security issues at his confirmation hearing earlier this month. On Afghanistan Dr. Carter told the committee he would consider revisions to the size and pace of the President's drawdown plan if security conditions warranted. To achieve the success that is possible there, he urged the United States to ``continue its campaign and finish the job.'' Dr. Carter indicated he is very much inclined in the direction of providing defensive lethal arms to help Ukraine resist Russian aggression. He pledged to do more to streamline and improve the Defense Acquisition System that takes too long and costs too much, and Dr. Carter agreed it is time to roll back sequestration because, in his words, ``it introduces turbulence and uncertainty that are wasteful, and it conveys a misleadingly diminished picture of our power in the eyes of friends and foes alike.'' America is confronted with a diverse and complex range of national security challenges. A revisionist Russia, a rising China, and radical Islamist groups each seeking in their own way to fundamentally challenge the international order as we have known it since the end of World War II, a system that cherishes the rule of law, maintains free markets and free trade, and relegates wars of aggression to their rightful place in the bloody past. We need a coherent national security strategy incorporating all elements of America's national power to sustain and defend the international order that has produced and extended security, prosperity, and liberty across the globe. We need to stop holding our military hostage to domestic political disputes and send an unmistakable message to friend and foe alike that America intends to lead in the 21st century by repealing sequestration immediately. We need to reform our Defense Acquisition System to restore confidence that every defense dollar is spent well and to ensure that the men and women in uniform are getting the training and equipment they need on time and at a cost acceptable to the taxpayer. That is why America needs a strong Secretary of Defense now more than ever. I think Dr. Carter will be a good Secretary of Defense, who will always keep faith with our men and women in uniform and work tirelessly on their behalf and that of our national security. I am hopeful about the prospects of working together with Dr. Carter, along with my colleagues in the Senate Committee on Armed Services on both sides of the aisle, to achieve our shared priorities, especially the reform of our Defense Acquisition System, the modernization of our military compensation system, and the repeal of sequestration. But when it comes to much of our national security policy, I must candidly express concern about the task that awaits Dr. Carter and the limited influence he may have. Two of his predecessors, Secretary Gates and Secretary Panetta, have severely criticized White House micromanagement of the Defense Department and overcentralization of foreign and defense policies. According to numerous news reports, Secretary Hagel experienced similar frustrations with the insular and indecisive White House national security team over issues ranging from ISIL to Ukraine, detention policy to sequestration. Dr. Carter is a worthy choice for Secretary of Defense. He has the experience, knowledge, and skill to succeed. The Armed Services Committee voted unanimously to approve his nomination last week, and I will gladly vote to confirm him today. I do so with sincere hope, and sadly, little confidence that the President who nominated Dr. Carter will empower him to lead and contribute to the fullest extent of his abilities. At a time of global upheaval and multiplying threats to our security, the American people need and deserve nothing less. I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for his cooperation and coordination with the hearing and for his input and influence which led to a unanimous vote from the committee. I yield the floor for my friend and colleague from Rhode Island.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to mourn the tragic death of 26-year-old humanitarian aid worker Kayla Jean Mueller of Prescott, AZ, who had been held by ISIL terrorists in Syria since August of 2013. I am heartbroken for the Mueller family at the loss of their beautiful, beloved Kayla. The thoughts and prayers of the people of her home State of Arizona, our country, and the civilized world are with the Mueller family at this terrible hour. I want to take the time today to share a bit of Kayla's story. This wonderful young woman represented the best of us. She had a remarkable impact on the lives of so many people who never had the honor of meeting her, and her story will forever be an inspiration to us. Kayla attended high school at Tri-City College Prep in Prescott, AZ, where she was recognized as a National Young Leader and received the President's Award For Academic Excellence in 2007, the Yavapai County Community Foundation Youth Philanthropist of the Year Award in 2005, and the Gold Presidential Volunteer Award in 2007 for her volunteer efforts with Youth Count, AmeriCorps, America's Promise, Open Inn for troubled youth, Big Brothers Big Sisters, and other organizations. After graduating from Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff in 2009, Kayla committed her life to helping people in need around the world--first in India, then Israel, the Palestinian territories, and back home in Prescott where she volunteered at an HIV-AIDS clinic, and a women's shelter. But it was the conflict in Syria that drew Kayla's greatest interest and, again, sparked her desire to help those in need. In a YouTube video she made in October 2011, as the Syrian civil war was just beginning, Kayla said: I am in solidarity with the Syrian people. I reject the brutality and killing that the Syrian authorities are committing against the Syrian people. Because silence is participation in this crime, I declare my participation in the Syrian sit-in on YouTube. In December 2012, Kayla traveled to the Turkish-Syrian border where she worked for months helping the thousands of Syrian refugees whose lives were torn apart by the humanitarian catastrophe created by Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian civil war. According to her family, Kayla found this work heartbreaking but compelling. She was extremely devoted to the people of Syria and their struggle. Kayla explained to her family her call to service this way. She said: I find God in the suffering eyes reflected in mine. If this is how you are revealed to me, this is how I will forever seek you. I will always seek God. Some people find God in church. Some people find God in nature. Some people find God in love; I find God in suffering. I've known for some time what my life's work is, using my hands as tools to relieve suffering. When Kayla traveled back home to visit her family in Arizona in May of 2013, she spoke about her experiences at the Prescott Kiwanis Club where her father was a member. After recalling helping a Syrian man, whose wife had been murdered, to reunite with a 6-year-old relative he was desperately searching for after their refugee camp was bombed, Kayla said: This story is not rare in Syria. This is the reality for Syrians two and a half years on. When Syrians hear I'm an American, they ask, ``Where is the world?'' All I can do is cry with them, because I don't know. After spending time with the refugees, Kayla told the Kiwanis Club she was totally drawn in, and that she ``can't do enough'' to help. She recalled stories of children being hurt by unexploded bombs, women forced into early marriages, elementary schools targeted for bombing by the Syrian regime, and people living in caves to escape the bombing. Kayla went on. She said: Syrians are dying by the thousands, and they're fighting just to talk about the rights we have. . . . For as long as I live, I will not let this suffering be normal. [I will not let this be] something we just accept. It's important to stop and realize what we have, why we have it and how privileged we are. And from that place, start caring and get a lot done. She described part of her work helping the Syrian children in the refugee camps--including drawing, painting, and playing with the children, many of whom were badly scarred physically and psychologically by the war. She said: We give and get joy from playing with these children. Half the 1.5 million refugees the U.N. has registered are children. In the chaos of waking up in the middle of the night and being shelled, we're hearing of more children being separated from their families by accident. Asked by Kiwanis members what her recommendations for addressing the conflict were, Kayla said, ``A no-fly zone over refugee camps would be number one.'' Kayla also believed if the terrible reality of the conflict were better known to Americans, our Nation would be more heavily engaged. ``The people of the United States would see that something needs to be done,'' she said. Today the Mueller family released a letter written to them by Kayla in the spring of 2014. I want to read a bit of it to give a sense of this young woman, her deep faith in God, her profound love for her family, and her remarkable strength in the face of grave danger. She wrote: I remember mom always telling me that all in all, in the end the only one you really have is God. I have come to a place in experience where, in every sense of the word, I have surrendered myself to our Creator because literally there was no one else. By God and by your prayers, I have felt tenderly cradled in free fall. I have been shown in darkness and light and have learned that even in prison one can be free. I am grateful. I have to see that there is good in every situation; sometimes we just have to look for it. I pray each day that, if nothing else, you have felt a certain closeness and surrender to God as well and have formed a bond of love and support amongst one another. I miss you all as if it had been a decade of forced separation. Kayla closed with these words: The thought of your pain is the source of my own. Simultaneously, the hope of our reunion is the source of my strength. Please be patient. Give your pain to God. I know you would want me to remain strong. That is exactly what I am doing. Do not fear for me; continue to pray, as will I. By God's will we will be together soon. All my everything, Kayla. In a statement today, the Mueller family reflected on Kayla's life and their commitment to work every day to honor her legacy: Kayla was a compassionate and devoted humanitarian. She dedicated the whole of her young life to helping those in need of freedom, justice and peace. Kayla was drawn to help those displaced by the Syrian civil war. She first traveled to Turkey in December 2012 to provide humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees. She told us of the great joy she took in helping Syrian children and their families. We are so proud of the person Kayla was and the work she did while she was here with us. She lived with purpose and we will work every day to honor her legacy. Our hearts are breaking for our only daughter, but we will continue on in peace, dignity and love for her. On behalf of the people of Arizona and the Congress of the United States, I express our deepest condolences to Kayla's parents, Marsha and Carl Mueller, her loving family, and many friends. Our thoughts and prayers are with you. Kayla devoted her young life to helping people in need around the world, to healing the sick, and bringing light to some of the darkest and most desperate places on Earth. She will never be forgotten. I ask unanimous consent that the letter written by Kayla during her imprisonment to her family be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I introduce the Foreign Earnings Reinvestment Act that would generate the flow of an estimated $1.9 trillion back into the American economy by temporarily allowing companies to return profits earned overseas to the U.S. at a reduced tax rate. It is no secret that one of the primary reasons why this money is laying idle and doing nothing to spur job creation is due to the fact that our Nation has the highest corporate tax rate in the free world at 35 percent. According to the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, OECD, when you add in additional State and local taxes the combined corporate rate jumps to a staggering 39.1 percent. Whereas, the average combined corporate tax rate for the rest of the developed world, excluding the U.S. is around 25 percent. Congress has long debated tax reform and has failed to act. It is my hope that, under a Republican controlled Congress, we will be able to move forward with tax reform, which includes lowering both the personal and corporate tax rate and eliminating tax loopholes. If we are not going to act on behalf of the American taxpayer than we need to make available temporary tax incentives to bring this money back home providing a much needed boost to our economy. The Foreign Earnings Reinvestment Act would encourage American companies to bring overseas earnings back to the United States and creates strong incentives for those firms to invest these earnings in U.S. employees. Specifically, the bill would temporarily reduce the current 35 percent corporate rate to an 8.75 percent effective rate on foreign earnings brought back to the United States. If companies are able to show that they are expanding their payroll by 10 percent through net job creation or higher payroll, the bill would allow these corporations to obtain up to a 5.25 percent effective repatriation rate In addition, the bill discourages U.S. companies from reducing employment by including in a company's gross income calculation of $75,000 per full- time position that is eliminated. This common sense legislation will drive the roughly $1.9 trillion currently parked overseas back here to the United States, boosting our economy and spurring job creation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I introduce the Foreign Earnings Reinvestment Act that would generate the flow of an estimated $1.9 trillion back into the American economy by temporarily allowing companies to return profits earned overseas to the U.S. at a reduced tax rate. It is no secret that one of the primary reasons why this money is laying idle and doing nothing to spur job creation is due to the fact that our Nation has the highest corporate tax rate in the free world at 35 percent. According to the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, OECD, when you add in additional State and local taxes the combined corporate rate jumps to a staggering 39.1 percent. Whereas, the average combined corporate tax rate for the rest of the developed world, excluding the U.S. is around 25 percent. Congress has long debated tax reform and has failed to act. It is my hope that, under a Republican controlled Congress, we will be able to move forward with tax reform, which includes lowering both the personal and corporate tax rate and eliminating tax loopholes. If we are not going to act on behalf of the American taxpayer than we need to make available temporary tax incentives to bring this money back home providing a much needed boost to our economy. The Foreign Earnings Reinvestment Act would encourage American companies to bring overseas earnings back to the United States and creates strong incentives for those firms to invest these earnings in U.S. employees. Specifically, the bill would temporarily reduce the current 35 percent corporate rate to an 8.75 percent effective rate on foreign earnings brought back to the United States. If companies are able to show that they are expanding their payroll by 10 percent through net job creation or higher payroll, the bill would allow these corporations to obtain up to a 5.25 percent effective repatriation rate In addition, the bill discourages U.S. companies from reducing employment by including in a company's gross income calculation of $75,000 per full- time position that is eliminated. This common sense legislation will drive the roughly $1.9 trillion currently parked overseas back here to the United States, boosting our economy and spurring job creation.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act, a most important piece of legislation. I would like to thank Senator Isakson in particular for expediting this legislation through the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I admire his leadership. I admire his commitment to the veterans of America. It has been a pleasure to know him and to serve in the Senate with an advocate for our American veterans. I would also like to thank Senator Blumenthal, whose partnership I have been with for a long period of time. Without his leadership and support, this legislation would not be coming to the floor. Every day approximately 22 American veterans commit suicide, totaling over 8,000 veteran suicides each year. I repeat: 8,000 veteran suicides each year. It is evident by these staggering numbers that our military and veterans affairs programs are not effectively treating post- traumatic stress disorder, known as PTSD, and other mental health illnesses that can lead to suicide. There are too many disconnected and ineffective treatment programs, and as a result our service men and women are suffering from the bureaucracy. Against this backdrop, I wish to highlight the story of Clay Hunt, for whom this proposed legislation is named. Clay enlisted in the Marine Corps in May of 2005, deployed to Al Anbar Province near Fallujah in January 2007. During that deployment Clay Hunt was shot in the wrist by a sniper's bullet that barely missed his head, a wound for which he received a Purple Heart. Despite having been wounded, Clay Hunt volunteered and graduated from Marine Corps Scout Sniper School in March 2008. After another deployment to Afghanistan, Clay was honorably discharged from the marines in April 2009. After returning home, Clay suffered from the effects of PTSD for many years and struggled with inadequate care at his local VA hospital. Subsequently, Clay took his own life in March 2011 at the age of 28. Clay is only one example of veterans who are trying to make their way in our country today, but who suffer, more so than they have to, because of Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs mismanagement of resources for suicide prevention and mental health treatment. This bipartisan bill will lay the foundation for improved mental health care and better suicide prevention resources for our American servicemembers. Specifically, this bill would require an independent evaluation of existing suicide prevention programs at the DOD and VA, gauge their effectiveness, and make recommendations for consolidation, elimination, or improvement. Additionally, this legislation would establish a new single Web site that provides information for veterans regarding available mental health care services, create a pilot loan repayment program to recruit more psychiatrists to treat veterans at the VA, improve the exchange of training best practices and other resources among the VA and nonprofit mental health organizations, create a community outreach pilot program to assist with and mitigate the stressors of servicemembers transitioning to civilian life, and provide a 1-year extension for certain combat veterans to enroll in the VA. Our Nation has a moral obligation to identify, resource, and make available to our veterans effective forms of treatment to help eliminate suicide resulting from severe combat-related psychological trauma. This bill is an important step to improve the care we provide to the men and women who have sacrificed for all of us and to whom we are forever indebted. We owe it to these brave men and women to act now. Obviously I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. The President's Budget Mr. President, I would like to briefly discuss the President's budget request for fiscal year 2016 as it relates to the Veterans' Administration. In this year's budget request, the President has stated he will submit legislation to reallocate part of the funding for the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014, legislation he signed into law just last August, to other programs within the VA. In other words, he wants to take money from the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act and put it into other programs within the VA--a bill we just passed last August. It clearly suggests that the President of the United States is disconnected from the needs of our veterans and he may be more solicitous about supporting a bloated, demonstrably dysfunctional bureaucracy than ensuring that quality care is available to our veterans. Our veterans have suffered long enough with wait times and scheduling delays at the VA, and deserve to have the right to choose where and when they get their health care. Taking funding away from this legislation, especially the choice card, shows a complete disregard for our veterans' well-being and the service they provide to our country. If or when this legislative proposal comes to the Hill, I would urge my colleagues to vote against it--in fact, not even consider it. I want to thank my colleagues. I am sure we will have an overwhelming vote today. I think it is an important step forward. I would like to thank all of the veterans organizations and veterans advocates who have made the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention Act for American Veterans a reality. But I would also like to urge my colleagues to understand that this problem, this serious problem, of 8,000 veteran suicides each year is not going away anytime soon. So do not believe the passage of this legislation will somehow be a cure-all. That can only come through long and persistent efforts and care and concern for our veterans who have given so much to their country. So I am very honored to be a part of this legislation. Again, I want to thank the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the ranking member, Senator Sanders. I would like to thank Senator Burr, who was ranking member previously. My friends, we have a long way to go. We have a lot of young men who have not been able to come all the way home. It is our job and our obligation to do everything we possibly can not only to honor them but to see that they have a safe and secure future, and one in which the thought of suicide would never be any consideration. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the RECORDS on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss an amendment that I filed to the pending legislation. It is an amendment to modify the Jones Act. The Jones Act is an archaic 1920s-era law that hinders free trade, stifles the economy, and hurts consumers, largely for the benefit of labor unions. Specifically, this amendment would effectively repeal a law that prevents U.S. shippers from purchasing or otherwise supportively procuring the services of vessels that are built outside the United States for use in American waters. From time to time here in Congress, we find that legislation still remains on the books many decades after it has served its original stated purpose. If ever we had one, I think one of the best examples of this is a law called the Jones Act. As many of you know, the Jones Act is simply a continuation of laws passed through U.S. history addressing cabotage--or port-to-port coastal shipping. Those laws have been used to protect U.S. domestic shipping dating back to the very first session of Congress. The Jones Act may have had some rationale back in the 1920s when it was enacted, but today it serves only to raise shipping costs, making U.S. farmers and businesses less competitive in the global marketplace and increasing costs for American consumers. According to the 2002 U.S. International Trade Commission economic study--by the way, the U.S. International Trade Commission is not a group of special interests, they are an international trade commission which is appointed to study issues affecting international trade, obviously, as the name implies. Their study reached the conclusion that repealing the Jones Act would lower shipping costs by about 22 percent. The Commission also found that repealing the Jones Act would have an annual positive welfare effect of $656 million on the U.S. economy. Since these decade-old studies are the most recent statistics available, imagine the impact the Jones Act repeal would have today-- far more than a $656 million annual positive impact--likely closer to $1 billion, stimulating our economy in the midst of an anemic recovery. The requirement that U.S. shippers must purchase vessels in the United States comes at a tremendous cost that is passed on to U.S. consumers. For example, just recently the U.S. container line Matson placed a $418 million order for two 3,600 20-foot equivalent unit container ships in a U.S. shipyard. The high price of $209 million per vessel reflects that the ships will be carrying goods within the United States and therefore governed by the protectionist Jones Act. The fact is that Matson's order at $209 million per ship is more than five times more expensive than if those same ships were procured outside of the United States. Ships of that size built outside the United States would cost closer to $40 million each. For comparison, even Maersk Line's far larger ships cost millions less at an average of $185 million each. The U.S. Maritime Administration, MARAD, has found that the cost to operate U.S. flag vessels at $22,000 per day is about 2.7 times higher than foreign flag vessels--just $6,000 a day. There is no doubt that these inflated costs are eventually passed on to shipping customers. In the energy sector, for example, the price for moving crude oil from the gulf coast to the Northeastern United States on Jones Act tankers is $5 to $6 more per barrel, while moving it to eastern Canada on foreign flag tankers is about $2. That can mean an additional $1 million per tanker in shipping costs for oil producers. This increased cost is why, according to the Congressional Research Service, more than twice as much gulf coast crude oil was shipped by water to Canada as shipped to Northeastern U.S. refineries last year-- all in an effort to avoid paying Jones Act shipping rates. The implications of this fact touches just about every American who buys gasoline. It is American consumers who pay exorbitantly higher prices because of a law that protects the shipbuilding industry and domestically manufactured ships that transport crude and other refined products. But it is not only the energy sector that deals with the distorted effects of the Jones Act. Cattlemen in Hawaii who want to bring their cattle to the U.S. mainland market, for example, have actually resorted to flying the cattle on 747 jumbo jets to work around the restrictions of the Jones Act. Their only alternative is to ship the cattle to Canada because all livestock carriers in the world are foreign owned. I am deeply concerned about the impact of any barrier to free trade. I believe the U.S. trade barriers invite other countries to put up or retain their own barriers and that at the end of the day the U.S. consumer and the economy at large pays the price. Throughout my career I have always been a strong supporter of free trade. Opening markets to the free flow of goods and services benefits America and benefits our trading partners. Trade liberalization creates jobs, expands economic growth, and provides consumers with access to lower cost goods and services. Yet as clear as the benefits of free trade are, actually taking action to remove trade barriers and open markets can be almost impossible in Congress. Special interests that have long and richly benefited from protectionism flex their muscles and issue doomsday warnings about the consequences of moving forward on free trade. Judging from the hysterical reaction by some of the special interests to my simple filing of this amendment, the debate over the Jones Act will be no different. The domestic shipbuilding requirement of the Jones Act is outdated and should be abolished. U.S. consumers are free to buy a foreign-built car. U.S. trucking companies are free to buy a foreign-built truck. U.S. railroads are free to buy a foreign-built locomotive. U.S. airlines are free to buy a foreign-built airplane. Why can't U.S. maritime special interests more affordably ship foreign goods on foreign-made vessels? Why do U.S. consumers, particularly those in Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico, need to pay for ships that are five times more expensive? If there was a law that long ago outlived its usefulness--if it ever had any--it is the Jones Act. On the Jones Act, it is time to change course today. I have a letter from the American Farm Bureau Federation which states: Farm Bureau believes that there should be no restrictions as to the quantities or vessels on which a commodity is shipped between U.S. ports. Repealing The Jones Act would allow more competition for the movement of goods between U.S. ports, thus driving down transportation costs. Continuing to read from the letter ``TO ALL MEMBERS OF SENATE'' from the Farm Bureau: Repeal of The Jones Act accomplishes the same purpose: a reduction in energy costs, increased competition to lower costs of U.S. goods and more opportunities to transport agricultural commodities at competitive prices. Due to this importance, Farm Bureau policy, developed by our grassroots members consisting of working farmers and ranchers, explicitly supports the repeal of The Jones Act. Farm Bureau urges you to vote in support of Sen. McCain's amendment repealing sections of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. Then there is an article: ``McCain under fire.'' A growing number of politicians are taking aim at a prominent US Senator's crusade against the Jones Act . . . . Oh my God. I am deeply concerned. All the special interests on this issue are weighing in. By the way, one of them would have effects on the U.S. shipbuilding and repair base. We all know the U.S. shipbuilding industry, because of the Jones Act, is moribund. In fact, I have an article from the Daily Signal which says: ``Shipbuilding industry stuck on ground.'' U.S. shipbuilding exports are tiny compared to exports of semis and trailers. Shipbuilding is subject to the protectionist Jones Act which hinders competition, while the semi industry is not. According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ``The coastwise laws [like the Jones Act] are highly protectionist `provisions that are intended to create a `coastwise monopoly' in order to protect and develop the American merchant marine, shipbuilding, etc.'' But protecting U.S. industries from competition may actually have the opposite effect. Consider U.S. production of vessels designed to transport goods via water compared to U.S. production of semi-trailer trucks and trailers designed to transport goods via land. In 2013, U.S. manufacturers exported $4.1 billion in semi-trailer trucks and trailers, but they exported just $0.1 billion in commercial ships. Americans in most states would benefit from the freedom to ship goods on the best-built, most affordable vessels, wherever they are made. The Alaska governor is actually required to ``use best efforts and all appropriate means to persuade the United States Congress to repeal those provisions of the Jones Act formally codified at 46 U.S.C. 861, et seq.'' The Jones Act drives up the price of gas, hinders U.S. infrastructure improvements, inflicts high costs on people in Hawaii and Puerto Rico, and makes it difficult to transship goods between U.S. ports. The facts are clear. What we have is an old-time 1920s law that may have been, I emphasize the word ``may,'' have had some utility in the past. I am aware that all of the special interests have been mobilized and how this can be damaging, frankly, to certain special interests. It would not be damaging to the average citizen who would pay less for the goods that are transported much more cheaply as a result of the Jones Act repeal. I say to those critics of this amendment, as has been my habit over the years, I will not quit on this issue. There will be other opportunities to put the Senate and Congress on record. Sooner or later the Farm Bureau will be heard. Sooner or later the people of Hawaii and Puerto Rico who are paying exorbitant prices that they shouldn't have to pay will be heard. Sooner or later this protectionist--an anachronism--ancient protectionist act will be repealed and average American consumers will benefit from it and unfortunately the special interests will not. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the January 20, 2015, Farm Bureau letter, the Heritage Foundation piece called the Daily Signal, entitled ``Senator McCain's Jones Act Amendment: Good for America,'' and another article: ``If You Like Higher Prices, Enriched Cronies, And Weak National Security, Then You'll Love The Jones Act.'' It is one of my favorite pieces.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Alaska. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise to discuss my opposition to the pending vote concerning Mr. Anthony ``Tony'' Blinken, who is not only unqualified, but, in fact, in my view, one of the worst selections of a very bad lot that this President has chosen. I hope that many of my colleagues will understand that I do not come to the floor to oppose a nomination of the President of the United States often because I believe that elections have consequences. In this case, this individual has actually been dangerous to America and to the young men and women who are fighting and serving our country. Mr. Blinken has been a foreign policy adviser to Vice President Biden since his days in the Senate, but as Robert Gates has noted, Mr. Biden has been ``wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.'' At the Special Operations Fund Annual Meeting on May 6, 2013, Mr. Blinken discussed a number of the administration's achievements, including, one, ending the war in Iraq responsibly; two, setting a clear strategy and date for the withdrawal from Afghanistan; three, decimating Al Qaeda's senior leadership; and four, repairing our alliances and restoring America's standing in the world. That is as Orwellian as any statement I have ever heard. Each and every issue--the conditions are a far cry from the so-called achievements that Mr. Blinken describes. In his capacity as an assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser, Mr. Blinken has been a functionary and an agent of a U.S. foreign policy that has made the world much less safe today. Let's review some major elements of that policy, and in particular, Mr. Blinken's role in conceptualizing and furthering it. U.S. foreign policy is in a shambles. It is, at best, astrategic, and at worst, antistrategic. It lacks any concept of how to obtain our foreign policy goals. This has led to countless foreign policy failures, including the continued slaughter of the Syrian people by President Bashar al-Assad; the Russian reset that culminated with President Putin's invasion of Ukraine; the betrayal of our key allies, especially in Central Europe, not to mention Israel; failing to achieve a status-of-forces agreement that would help to maintain Iraqi security and stability; following similarly unwise strategies in Afghanistan--we will see the same movie in Afghanistan that we saw in Iraq if we have a date-driven withdrawal rather than a status-driven, conditions- driven situation; and our feckless position in negotiations with Iran on nuclear weapons that has failed to produce any progress towards an agreement. I could go into many other failures, such as the vaunted Geneva Convention of 40 nations that was supposed to arrange for the transition of power from Bashar al-Assad and the object failure of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, and what will either be an imminent failure of an Iranian nuclear weapons agreement or an agreement that will be disastrous in the long run. There are two common sayings by the administration officials, not me, that have defined the President's approach to foreign policy: ``Leading from behind,'' and ``Don't do stupid [stuff].'' These approaches have resulted in a failed foreign policy that has made America and Americans less safe. Even President Obama's most strident supporters have begun to question the President's foreign policy decisions. In an article entitled ``Damage to Obama's Foreign Policy Has Been Largely Self-Inflicted,'' the Washington Post's David Ignatius, a key supporter of the administration's foreign policy goals, wrote, ``At key turning points--in Egypt and Libya during the Arab Spring, in Syria, in Ukraine, and, yes, in Benghazi--the administration was driven by messaging priorities rather than sound, interests-based policy.'' What has Mr. Blinken had to say about all of these issues, my friends? I will give you a few examples. On Iraq, at the Center for American Progress, on March 16, 2012--I am not making this up--Mr. Blinken said: What's beyond debate is that Iraq today is less violent, more democratic and more prosperous--and the United States more deeply engaged there--than at any time in recent history. Less violent, more democratic, and more prosperous. At a White House briefing on March 16, 2012, Mr. Blinken said: President Obama and Vice President Biden came to office with this commitment: To end the Iraq war responsibly. Both parts of that sentence are critical. End the war. Responsibly. Under the leadership of President Obama and Vice President Biden, who the President asked to oversee our Iraq policy-- and who has made 8 trips to Iraq since being elected--we have followed that path to the letter. He went on to say: At every significant step along the way, many predicted that the violence would return and Iraq would slide backward toward sectarian war. Get this. He said: Those predictions proved wrong. He went on to say: Over the past three years, violence has declined and remains at historic lows--even after we completed the drawdown of U.S. forces late last year. Remember, he said this in 2012. Weekly security incidents fell from an average of 1,600 in 2007-2008 to fewer than 100 today. He went on to say: And in December, after more than eight wrenching years, President Obama kept his promise to end the war--responsibly. And, while Iran and Iraq will inevitably be more intertwined than we, and many of its neighbors, would like, one thing we learned, over more than eight years in Iraq is that the vast majority of its leaders, including the Prime Minister-- Who at that time was Prime Minister Maliki-- --are first and foremost Iraqi nationalists and resistant to outside influence from anywhere--starting with Iran. Everybody knows that the Iranians are probably the most influential nation in Iraq, certainly under Maliki. On foreign policy, December 27, 2013, he said: If we still had troops in Iraq today, the numbers would have been very small. They would not have been engaged in combat. That would not have been their mission, so the idea that they could or would have done something about the violence that is going on now in Iraq seems, to me, detached from the reality of what the mission would have been had they stayed in any small number. Now you don't have to take my word for it. Take the word of Secretary Gates, Secretary Panetta, Ambassador Crocker, and any knowledgeable person about Iraq, and I will insert their quotes for the record, including Ambassador Crocker, who said: ``Of course we could have left a residual force behind.'' Both Panetta and Gates said the same thing. At no time was there a public statement by the President of the United States or Mr. Blinken that they wanted to very seriously. In fact, they trumpeted the fact that the last American troop at that time--now we have many troops back--left Iraq and bragged about what a great day it was. On Fox News with Chris Wallace, September 28, 2014: Wallace: Finally, President Obama spoke to the U.N. this week, but I wanted to ask you about his speech to the U.N., saying-- general assembly last year, in which he said we are ending a decade of war. How could the President have been so wrong? Blinken: The president was exactly right. What we're doing is totally different than the last decade. We're not sending hundreds of thousands of American troops back to Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else. We're not going to be spending trillions of American dollars. Wallace: Mr. Blinken . . . he said all our troops left Iraq. In fact, he has just sent at least 1,600 troops back into Iraq. He said we've dismantled the core of al Qaeda. [And yet,] the Khorasan group which you struck in the first day is an offshoot of the core of al Qaeda, and, in fact, follows the direct orders of the leader of al Qaeda, Ayman al Zawahiri. Blinken: Chris, they fled. Because we were so successful and effective in Afghanistan and Pakistan, they fled, because we decimated the core of Al Qaeda. They removed themselves. They went to Syria. At the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on October 30, 2014: The White House ``sought to leave a limited residual force'' in Iraq, but the Iraqi Government simply refused to agree to legal protections for such troops, said then-Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken, who argued the final decision to withdraw all U.S. troops ``was not the result of a failure to negotiate.'' ``It's something we worked very hard,'' he said. ``But . . . after a 10-year `occupation,' the Iraqi body politic did not want us to stay in Iraq. That's what happened'' . . . We were focused and acting on ISIL and the threat that it posed more than 1 year before the fall of Mosul, but the problem began to outrun the solution fueled by the conflict in Syria, Iraqi reluctance, and renewed sectarianism in Iraq in advance of elections with politicians on all sides playing to their bases. Statements such as these are so divorced from reality, one can only draw one of two conclusions: either that Mr. Blinken is abysmally ignorant or he is simply not telling the truth for whatever motive there is. By the way, here is what Ryan Crocker said on Iraq: As a former ambassador to Iraq from 2007 to 2009, do you think it was a mistake not to push hard for the Status of Forces agreement with Iraq before the U.S. pullout? I would remind my colleagues, Ryan Crocker--probably the most respected member of our diplomatic corps alive today--said: I do. We could have gotten that agreement if we had been a little more persistent, flexible, and creative. But what really cost us was the political withdrawal. We cut off high- level political engagement with Iraq when we withdrew our troops. There were no senior visits, very few phone calls. Secretary of State John Kerry made one visit prior to this current crisis, mainly to lecture the Iraqis on how bad they were being for facilitating Iranian weapon shipments to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. And we left them to their own devices, knowing that left to their own devices, it would not work out well. So we have Mr. Blinken's comments, and juxtapose them with those of Ambassador Crocker. Here is what Leon Panetta, Democrat, Secretary of Defense said: It was clear to me--and many others--that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together. That is from Secretary Leon Panetta's book. Then he went on to say: My fear, as I voiced to the President and others, was that if the country split apart or slid back into the violence that we'd seen in the years immediately following the U.S. invasion, it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the U.S. Iraq's stability was not only in Iraq's interest but also in ours. I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq's military. Then he went on to say, talking about the Pentagon: Those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests. That is a statement by Leon Panetta. I will move on to Afghanistan. Mr. Blinken said: We have been very clear. We have been consistent. The war will be concluded by the end of 2014. We have a timetable, and that timetable will not change. This is why I am so worried about him being in the position he is in, because if they stick to that timetable, I am telling my colleagues that we will see the replay of Iraq all over again. We must leave a stabilizing force behind of a few thousand troops or we will see again what we saw in Iraq. So let's move on to Syria. In an MSNBC interview in 2014, responding to a question about President Obama's comment in August 2014 calling it ``a fantasy'' to say that arming the Syrian rebels 3 years ago would have helped the situation, Blinken: Fantasy was the notion that had we started to work with these guys-- Talking about the Free Syrian Army-- six months earlier, that that somehow would have turned the tide. Blinken: Candy, you know, Assad has been a magnet for the very extremism we're now fighting against. And it is inconceivable to think of Syria being stable with Assad as its leader. He has forfeited his legitimacy. ISIL right now is the wolf at the door. But the answer to both Assad and ISIL actually is the moderate opposition. They need to be built up, so that they can be a counterweight to Assad. In the near term, they need to be built up so they can work on the ground to help deal with ISIL. Candy Crowley: So ISIS is the wolf at the door now, but Assad, as far as the U.S. is concerned, is the next wolf at the door? Mr. Blinken: We have been very clear that there needs to be a transition in Syria, that as long as Assad is there, it's very hard to see Syria being stable, and he will continue to be a magnet for the extremists we are fighting. Crowley: But a transition is not the same as, we will actively help you bring this guy down. Blinken: The best way to deal with Assad is to transition him out so that the moderate opposition can fill the vacuum. That's what we have been working on. The more you build them up, the more you make them a counterweight, the more possible that becomes. Let me just remind my colleagues of what has happened. There is a guy named Caesar who about a year and a half ago smuggled out thousands of pictures. These pictures are the most gripping and horrifying I have ever seen. They were actual pictures which have been authenticated of the atrocities committed by Bashar Assad. They are wrenching, they are heartbreaking, and they are terrible. Now, 200,000 people have been butchered in Syria, and 3.5 million are refugees; 150,000 are still in Bashar Assad's prison experiencing atrocities such as this. These are little children here. These are little children. They have been massacred by Bashar Assad. What have we done? What have we done in response to this? First of all, amazingly, these photographs have been authenticated by this guy Caesar. He did testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It didn't seem to rise to the interest of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee or the American people or this administration. I was at a refugee camp in Jordan where at that time there were, I think, 75,000 refugees. I was being taken around by a young woman who was a schoolteacher, and she said: Senator McCain, do you see all of these children? I said: Yes. She said: Those children believe that you have abandoned them, Senator McCain, that you Americans have abandoned them, and when they grow up, they are going to take revenge on you. So here we are, this incredible slaughter, massacre, torture taking place, and what is this administration doing? It is trying to make a deal with the Iranians and leaving Bashar Assad to wreak havoc on the Syrian people who are still able to fight, butchering them with barrel bombs. Most of my colleagues know what a barrel bomb is. It is a huge cylinder, and it is packed with explosives and nuts and bolts and pieces of shrapnell. Bashar Assad, unimpeded, flies his helicopters and they drop these barrel bombs. Then, when they capture these people, this is what is done to them. Today it is clear that what is happening is that we are attacking ISIS in Syria. We are not attacking Bashar Assad, this butcher. In fact, Bashar Assad has intensified his attacks on the Free Syrian Army--intensified them. Not surprisingly, the morale of the Free Syrian Army is very low. So General Allen and others have recently proposed a no-fly zone or an aircraft exclusion zone, an idea we have been arguing for, for about 3 years. This President still refuses to do it. It is heartbreaking. It is heartbreaking and it is tragic and it will go down in American history as one of the most shameful chapters because of our failure and the President's personal decision not to arm the Free Syrian Army when all of his key national security advisers--his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton; the head of the CIA, General Petraeus; and Secretary of Defense, Secretary Panetta all strongly recommended providing arms to the Free Syrian Army. I will move on to Ukraine. Mr. Blinken: What Putin has seen is the President mobilizing the international community both in support of Ukraine and to isolate Russia for its actions in Ukraine, and Russia is paying a clear cost for that. The notion that this is somehow the result of Syria makes very little sense to me. . . . That's because this is not about what we do or say in the first instance, it's about Russia and its perceived interests. What Mr. Blinken doesn't understand is that weakness in one place translates throughout the world. When I tell my colleagues, when I tell my fellow citizens that we will not supply the Ukraine people with defensive weapons, they don't believe me. They have watched the country dismembered. They have watched Crimea go. They have watched the shoot-down on an airliner that nobody talks about anymore, and they continue to create unrest and killing in eastern Ukraine, and we will not even supply the Ukrainians with weapons with which to defend themselves. I see that I am nearly out of time. I would like to say I wish Mr. Blinken's words were matched by his deeds. At the Holocaust Museum, October 6, 2014, he said: A new notion is gaining currency: the ``Responsibility to Protect.'' It holds that states have responsibilities as well as interests--especially the responsibility to shield their own populations from the depraved and murderous. This approach is bold. It is important. And the United States welcomes it and has included it as a core element of our National Security Strategy, along with our commitment to prevent genocide and hold those who organize atrocities accountable. No one can look at those pictures, the thousands, and believe that we have held Bashar Assad responsible. He ended up by saying: Endorsing the responsibility to protect is one thing; acting on it is another. All of us in the international community will have to muster the political will to act-- diplomatically, economically, or, in extreme cases, militarily--when governments prove unable or unwilling to prevent the slaughter of their citizens. That is a remarkable statement from an individual whose actions have clearly contradicted that at every turn in literally every corner of the Earth. I know we will probably lose the vote, but I believe history will hold this administration accountable. History will hold those individuals who are part of this administration, who allowed these slaughters to go on--a dismemberment of a country called Ukraine, the first time a European country has been departitioned since World War II; the needless slaughter of thousands and thousands of Ukrainian men, women, and children, and the thousands and thousands of Syrian children. The list goes on and on. Now we are going to promote this individual to replace probably the finest diplomat I have known, Secretary Burns. Not only is Mr. Blinken unqualified, but he is, I believe, a threat to the traditional interests and values that embody the United States of America. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today I honor Voice of America's Ukrainian Service as it celebrates its 65th anniversary this week. VOA has distinguished itself among the very best news organizations in the world. For over 65 years, from the dark days of Stalin's rule to the regime of Vladimir Putin, VOA has served as a beacon of truth for Ukrainian citizens. Throughout the Cold War, VOA supported the struggle for freedom and gave hope to citizens living under repressive rule in Soviet Ukraine. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, VOA was the first to pick up the call of independence and take advantage of new opportunities to speak freely to the Ukrainian people. The organization's long history of comprehensive reporting and objective, reliable coverage proved ever more important in November 2013 when demonstrations broke out against then-President Yanukovych's decision not to sign an association agreement with Europe. Through all of this, VOA provided live video streaming and multimedia reporting from the center of the EuroMaidan demonstrations and was one of the few news outlets fully covering Russia's annexation of Crimea. In its coverage, the world saw the spirit of the Ukrainian people and stood with them in their struggle for democracy, human rights, and the values of the transatlantic community. Through its continued coverage today, the world is now witness to Russia's aggression and invasion. More recently, VOA has been a critical source of information for the Ukrainian people as Russia continues to advance its propaganda campaign across the region, spreading disinformation and undermining the efforts of Ukraine's EuroMaidan reformers. Putin's control of information is a key part of his strategy to rebuild post-Soviet Russia through aggression, and he uses disinformation as a tool to complement his transnational military campaigns and subvert democratic growth and development in Ukraine and across Eastern Europe. At a time when Putin's propaganda machine is working to deny reality and distort perceptions, Ukrainians rely heavily on VOA's credibility and accuracy, and its message of freedom, hope and human dignity. VOA's reporters have worked under difficult and at times dangerous conditions. Previous governments have attempted to manipulate the media through repression and intimidation, and journalists were often arrested or detained. Today, journalists attempting to report on the conflict in eastern Ukraine are being harassed, intimidated, and physically attacked, constantly under threat of Russian thuggery. But this has not stopped the brave men and women working for VOA Ukrainian Service. They have worked through trying times, but have always maintained the integrity and professionalism to which all journalists can aspire. Over the last 65 years, VOA has delivered thoughtful, comprehensive, and honest reporting when the Ukrainian people needed it most. I thank all members of VOA Ukrainian Service, past and present, for their tireless efforts and congratulate the organization on its 65th anniversary. Thank you for the work you do in service to the people of Ukraine and the shared values we hold dear. Together, and with the information you provide, we can achieve the democratic aspirations of our people and make the world a better, safer place for all citizens.