John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will speak very briefly. Mainly, I come here on the floor to thank the Senator from Vermont and my good friend from North Carolina on the hard work they and members of the Veterans Affairs' Committee have done on this issue. I greatly respect my dear friend from Oklahoma and his concern. But I would have to say to my colleagues: If there was ever a definition of an emergency, that emergency faces us today because our veterans are not receiving the care we owe them as a nation. There are veterans who are dying as we speak for lack of care. There is gross mismanagement. There are problems that will take our new Secretary of Veterans Affairs literally years to fix. I am proud that in this legislation there is choice, and there is the ability of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to fire people who are not doing their job. Those are the important aspects, most important to me, because I think we can change the Veterans Administration. But the present situation cries out for immediate action. Obviously there were parts of this legislation that I did not agree with. Obviously there were parts that the Senator from Vermont did not agree with. But the hard work put together by the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from Vermont--I am very proud to say we bring before you a way to put a final stamp on beginning to end. This is not the beginning of the end. This is the beginning of the beginning of our effort to help those men and women who have defended our Nation with honor and dignity. We owe them that. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the waiver of the Budget Act and to vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN. I would say in response to my dear friend from Oklahoma, I agree with every single thing that he has said. But we must embark on fixing this problem. The choice and the ability to give the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the authority to hire and fire people is important to me that I believe they deserve our support. I would also ask my friend from Oklahoma, can we leave here for 5 weeks and not address this issue? There are 50 veterans in my State that have probably died--at least allegations are such. Can we leave here and not act? If I had written this bill with only you and me, I would say to my friend from Oklahoma, it would probably be $10 billion less and all of it paid for. But we had to negotiate, not only with the other side of the aisle but with the other side of the Capitol. So this is not perfect legislation. But for us not to pass it at this time would send a message to the men and women who have served this country that we have abandoned them. We can't do that.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what we are talking about, really, is rather than get in a car or van and drive for 40 miles and hours and have that all reimbursed and paid for, a person will go to the local care provider. Common sense shows that costs one heck of a lot less, I would say to my colleague.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today I honor a superb leader, intrepid warrior, and outstanding role model. Fifty years ago on August 4, then- LTJG Everett ``Ev'' Alvarez, was shot down in his A-4 Skyhawk during a bombing mission in the Gulf of Tonkin. Everett was the first U.S. pilot shot down over North Vietnam and served 8\1/2\ years--the second- longest tenure of any U.S. prisoner of war. Over the years, hundreds of other American prisoners joined him in Hoa Lo prison and similar detention centers around the country. Despite starvation and other significant health challenges, Everett had the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual strength to endure the harshest conditions imaginable until his release on February 12, 1973. Mr. Alvarez went on to complete a 20-year career in the Navy, retiring as a Commander in 1980. His service to our Nation, however, did not end there. Upon retirement, Everett earned a law degree and in 1981 was appointed by President Reagan to be the Deputy Director of the Peace Corps. Quickly proving his ability to lead outside of the military, a year later President Reagan nominated him in 1982 to be the Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, serving 6 years. Everett went on to serve on several boards, including the board of regents of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, is a lifetime member on the board of fellows of his alma mater, Santa Clara University, and earlier this year was asked by Secretary Hagel to be a member of the Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Council. His performance in and out of uniform has been widely recognized, to include the Silver Star, two Legions of Merit, two Bronze Stars, the Distinguished Flying Cross, as well as the Lone Sailor Award, an honor bestowed to sea service veterans for exceptional civilian leadership. Everett has made an indelible impact on his fellow prisoners, service members, and organizations he has been associated with over his lifetime. He is the co-author of two seminal works on the experience of living in captivity--``Chained Eagle'' and ``Code of Conduct.'' Committing a lifetime of service to our Nation, Ev personifies the indomitable American spirit and is a shining example of strength through adversity. In an interview he once famously said, ``Together we stepped into the dungeons and we faced the dragon, and we came out of it.'' On this occasion, I believe it is fitting to recognize Everett Alvarez's 50 years of distinguished service to our Nation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a colloquy with the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. McCAIN. I would say first of all to the Senator from Maryland, on behalf of all Naval Academy graduates and all of us who love the Naval Academy, your support of the Naval Academy has been consistent, unswerving. You have been probably the staunchest supporter of the U.S. Naval Academy I have ever had the privilege of encountering. I want to also tell the Senator that the devotion she has extended to the Naval Academy is reciprocated by the Naval Academy and its graduates to her. I thank her for that. Yes, Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Maryland, a dear and beloved friend, ADM Chuck Larson passed away. I would be honored to join with her in any way that we could to honor his memory. I would just like to point out that the Senator from Maryland was heavily involved when there was a very serious cheating scandal at the Naval Academy. Senator Mikulski led the investigation and demand for correcting that situation, and Admiral Larson was called back from retirement to be the Superintendent of the Naval Academy, on the recommendation of the Senator from Maryland--the only naval officer in history who served as Superintendent twice. And he put the Naval Academy back on the right track. I would like to say, again, that he mentioned to me often the consistent support for reform, for the institution, and they are incredibly proud of her representation not just of the people of Maryland but specifically of that wonderful institution. I know I speak for Chuck Larson when I say that. I thank you.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, quite often--on numerous occasions--I have come to the floor of the Senate to talk about the ongoing tragedy of Syria, not in the belief that any action may be taken of any real impact, although it has always been my hope and prayer, but because my conscience dictates that I come to the floor of the Senate and discuss one of the great and unfortunate and shameful chapters in our history. Last February I came to the floor to appeal to the conscience of my colleagues and fellow citizens about the mass atrocities that the Assad regime is perpetuating in Syria. I brought with me at that time a series of gruesome images that documented the horrors the Assad regime has committed against political prisoners in its jails across that country. Those images were smuggled out of the country by Caesar-- Caesar--a Syrian military policeman who risked his life and the lives of his family and friends to show the world the real face of human suffering in Syria today. At the time I had hoped that those images would cry out to our national conscience and compel our great Nation to help end the suffering and genocide of the Syrian people. How could anyone--how could anyone--look at those pictures and not press for immediate accountability and an end to those mass atrocities? In the months since those images were first made public, United States and European investigators have pored over the images and concluded that not only are these images genuine but they are evidence of an industrial-scale campaign by the Assad regime against its political opponents. According to the State Department, these photographs are evidence of systematic atrocities not seen since Hitler's Nazi regime exterminated millions during World War II. Stephen Rapp, the State Department's Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes, stated that: This is solid evidence of the kind of machinery of cruel death that we haven't seen frankly since the Nazis. It's shocking to me. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, after a briefing to the U.N. Security Council members, stated, ``The gruesome images of corpses bearing marks of starvation, strangulation and beatings and today's chilling briefing indicate that the Assad regime has carried out systematic, widespread and industrial killing.'' Despite the statements from these and other senior officials, the administration has yet to finish its investigation. Perhaps when the administration does complete its forensic analysis of the evidence provided by Caesar, President Obama will decide it is finally time to take action in Syria and prevent the continuation of mass atrocities that according to his Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities is ``a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.'' I have to tell my colleagues I am not hopeful. In the time that the investigation to prove what we all know to be true has been underway, approximately 40,000 more people have died, another 1 million people have been forced from their homes, and over half of Syria's population is now believed to be in dire need of food, water, and medicine. The Assad regime continues to bomb northern Syria, using crude cluster munitions known as barrel bombs with the sole purpose of terrorizing and killing as many people as possible when indiscriminately dropped from Syrian Government aircraft on schools, factories, and mosques. It continues to raze entire neighborhoods for no military purpose whatsoever, simply as a form of collective punishment of Syrian civilians. It continues its ``surrender or starve'' famine campaign, starving people to death by denying entire neighborhoods any access to food or water. Just last month the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which has been tasked with destroying Syria's chemical stockpiles, announced there is credible evidence that toxic chemicals are still being used in a systematic manner in Syria. Indeed, this kind of inhumane cruelty is a pattern of behavior for the Syrian government. As early as August 2011, a damning 22-page report was issued by the United Nations human rights office, which concluded that Syrian Government forces had committed crimes against humanity by carrying out summary executions, torturing prisoners and harming children, the evidence of which we now see clearly in those images. The report prompted President Obama to issue a statement calling for President Assad to step down. The President declared: We have consistently said that President Assad must lead a Democratic transition or get out of the way. He has not led. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside. That was 2 years ago. The President ended this statement by saying, ``It is clear that President Assad believes that he can silence the voices of his people by resorting to the repressive tactics of the past, but he is wrong.'' Following the President's statement, there was no shortage of administration officials publicly professing that President Assad's days were numbered. In December 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a NATO gathering that Assad's fall was ``inevitable.'' She later repeated, ``It is time for Assad to get out of the way.'' That was from our then-Secretary of State. That same month White House spokesman Jay Carney echoed Clinton's proclamation stating: Assad's fall is inevitable. As governments make decisions about where they stand on this issue and what steps need to be taken with regards to brutality of Assad's regime, it is important to calculate into your consideration the fact that he will go. He went on to say, ``The regime has lost control of the country and he will eventually fall.'' In May 2012, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey told FOX News that ``escalating atrocities would likely trigger a military intervention following a massacre that left more than 100 dead.'' One hundred dead--that was back when we were talking about Syria's dead in hundreds rather than thousands and tens of thousands. One month later, in June 2012, then-Secretary of Defense Panetta stated: I think it's important when Assad leaves--and he will leave--to try to preserve stability in that country . . . I'm sure that deep down Assad knows he's in trouble, and it's just a matter of time before he has to go. I would say, if you [Assad] want to be able to protect yourself and your family, you better get the hell out now. That was in June of 2012 by our Secretary of Defense. Where are we now? Three years after President Obama and his administration rightly decided it was time for him to go, President Assad remains in power, and I know of no one who believes Bashar Assad is going to negotiate his departure. In fact, he just orchestrated another ``reelection.'' I remember when an American President said that a foreign leader must go, it conveyed a commitment to doing something about it. But instead of taking decisive action in support of the President's declared policy, the administration has simply moved away from calls for Assad to step down over the past year. In fact, instead of being forced to step down, Assad has continuously gotten the administration to treat his regime as a central interlocutor, first with the chemical weapons agreement through which Assad forced the United States into acknowledging its legitimacy and ensuring that he would remain in place until the agreement was carried out, then by serving as the sole authority on distribution of aid within the country, and now by presenting himself as critical to the fight against terrorism and the Al Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. So as it turns out, President Obama was right that Assad's violence and repressive tactics could not silence the voices of the Syrian people who even in the worst imaginable conditions have continued to fight for freedom and a Democratic Syria. Instead, it has been the voice of President Obama and other administration officials that President Assad has managed to silence. We cannot be silent, but we cannot allow words to replace action either. What has become exceedingly clear in the wake of recent events is that even if we can ignore the moral imperative to act, the growing threat to American national security interests means that doing nothing is now out of the question. The conflict in Syria is largely to blame for the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has grown into the even more dangerous and lethal Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, commonly referred to by the acronym ISIS or ISIL. Top officials testified in last week's Foreign Relations Committee hearing that ISIS represents a threat that is ``worse than Al-Qaeda.'' Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran Brett McGurk stated that ISIS is no longer simply a terrorist organization but ``a full blown army seeking to establish a self-governing state through the Tigris and Euphrates Valley in what is now Syria and Iraq.'' The Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General have all warned repeatedly about the threat posed by ISIS's state-like sanctuary in Syria and Iraq and the largest safe haven for global terrorism in the world. If the September 11 attack should have taught us anything, it is that global terrorists who occupy ungoverned spaces and seek to plot and plan attacks against us can pose a direct threat to our national security. That was Afghanistan on September 10, 2001. That is what these top officials are now warning us that Syria is becoming today. Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson said, ``Syria is now a matter of homeland security.'' FBI Director James Comey recently warned Congress that the terrorist threat from Syria against the United States is ``metastasizing.'' Their assessments were confirmed earlier this month by Attorney General Eric Holder, who said that recent intelligence reports of terrorists from Syria partnering with Yemeni bombmakers are ``more frightening than anything I think I've seen as attorney general. It's something that gives us really extreme, extreme concern.'' He added: If they-- Meaning ISIS-- are able to consolidate their gains in that area, Iraq and Syria, I think it's just a matter of time before they start looking outward and start looking at the West and at the United States in particular. So this is something that we have to get on top of and get on top of now. It is clear President Assad's strategy is to convince the administration that we only have two options, him or Al Qaeda-linked terrorists. It is a sad testament to the administration's leadership on Syria that Assad's strategy seems to be working. According to a report by the Daily Beast, administration officials are debating whether to abandon the President's goal of toppling Assad and enter into a de facto alliance with the Assad regime to fight ISIS or other Sunni extremists in the region. Such a decision would represent the height of folly. Nobody--nobody-- should believe Assad is an ally in the fight against terrorism. Former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, who resigned in May after asserting that he could no longer defend American policy in Syria, made it clear how foolish such thinking is. He said: The people who think Bashar Assad's regime is the answer to containing and eventually eliminating the Islamic-based threat do not understand the historic relationship between the regime and ISIS. They do not understand the current relationship between Assad and ISIS and how they are working on the ground together directly and indirectly inside Syria. He added, If this administration wants to contain the Islamic State on the ground, they are going to have to help the Free Syrian Army. After more than 3 years of horror and suffering and devastation and growing threats to our national security, the conflict in Syria continues to get worse and worse, both for Syria and for the world, but the United States has no effective policy to bring this conflict to a responsible end. The outcome of the administration's disengagement has been a consistent failure to support more responsible forces in Syria when that support would have mattered. The descent of Syria into chaos and growing regional instability, the use of Syria as a training ground for Al Qaeda affiliates and other terrorist organizations, the ceding of regional leadership to our adversaries, and the shameful tolerance of war crimes and crimes against humanity--in short, all of the horrible things the critics said would happen if we got more involved in Syria--have happened because we have not gotten more involved. Now President Obama finds himself in a position where the United States will have to do far more today to stave off disaster in Syria than we would have needed to do in 2012. The administration seems to have finally come around to the idea that we must arm, train, and equip the moderate opposition in Syria. But arming moderate FSA units is only one element of what must be done for a much broader strategy that includes both Syria and Iraq. I will be the first to admit there are no good options left, if good options ever existed to begin with. But as bad as our options are, we still have options to do something meaningful in Syria. The conflict in Syria is reaching a critical point. Government forces are advancing on Aleppo, effectively cutting off routes into and out of the city from the south and west, exercising a stranglehold on the people of Aleppo. More than 6 months of punishing daily air strikes have killed thousands of residents and forced tens of thousands more to flee. But at least 500,000 residents remain in Aleppo, and they are being slowly asphyxiated by Assad's forces as they brace for Aleppo's upcoming siege. Meanwhile, disillusioned fighters, starved of the resources and equipment they need, have been drifting from the front lines and, in some cases, joining the better funded and equipped extremist groups. It is a moral outrage to watch the destruction of what remains of Aleppo and refuse to do more to help those fight against our enemies in the region. Worse still, the government's campaign has been aided and abetted by ISIS, which is attacking the Free Syrian Army from the northeast in an attempt to take control of two vital supply lines from Turkey and forcing the moderate opposition to fight simultaneously on two fronts. Such activists are suggesting that the fall of Aleppo could be the nail in the coffin for the modern opposition, and the situation for civilians still living in Aleppo has become so disastrous that the United States recently authorized the delivery of cross-border humanitarian aid without prior approval from the Assad regime. These efforts are a bandaid on a bullet wound. It will not be enough to mitigate the dire crisis unfolding in the city, and we must offer quick support to the moderate opposition as they battle the Assad regime and extremists from the Islamic state before it is too late. The rise of ISIS, combined with the events in Gaza and Ukraine, has placed Assad's assault on Aleppo safely outside of the headlines. With the international community distracted by these disturbing events in other parts of the word, Assad will again manipulate time and terror in his favor. President Obama, who spent much of his time in recent weeks at fundraising events, said nothing about Syria or Iraq during recent appearances to discuss Gaza and Ukraine. Worse still, details of the sole initiative proposed by the administration on Syria since the collapse of the Geneva peace talks reveals a plan that would train less than a battalion-sized unit of 2,300 individuals and wouldn't begin until the middle of next year. By that time Aleppo may be lost and there may be no more units left in Syria to support. The conflict in Syria is a threat to our national interests, but it is more than that. It is an affront to our conscience. Images such as these should not just be a source of heartbreak and sympathy, they should be a call to action. For the sake of our national security we must move quickly to help the moderate opposition now before it is too late. For the sake of our national conscience, we must do more to help the 150,000 political prisoners who remain in Assad's prisons and put an end to the suffering of the Syrian people. It is with great sadness that I met with Caesar yesterday and had to tell him the truth: that although our great Nation could have done more to stop the suffering of others, that we could have used the power we possess--limited and imperfect as it may be--to prevent massive atrocities and the killing of innocents, it is with everlasting shame that we have not. Shame on all of us for our current failure. If there ever was a case that should remind us that our interests are indivisible from our values, it is Syria, and we cannot afford to go numb to this human tragedy. I have seen my fair share of suffering and death in the world, but the images and stories coming out of Syria haunt me most. But it is not too late. The United States is still the most powerful Nation in the world today, and we have the power and capabilities to act when brutal tyrants slaughter their people with impunity. No one should believe that we are without options even now. I pray that we will finally recognize the costs of inaction and take the necessary actions to end Assad's mass atrocities and to help the Syrian people write a better ending to this sad chapter in world affairs. I note the presence of our distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I urge my colleagues--among many reasons--to support him in his effort to bring the National Defense Authorization Act before this body. Part of that act also authorizes for the training and equipping of the Free Syrian forces. I thank my friend and colleague the Senator from Michigan and the chairman of our committee, whose unstinting effort has made this National Defense Authorization Act something that deserves the attention, debate, amending, and passage from the Senate. I thank my colleague from Michigan. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my statement on the National Defense Authorization Act following the remarks of Senator Levin and Senator Inhofe. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today to urge the majority leader to bring to the floor for debate one of the most important pieces of legislation that comes before this body each year-- the National Defense Authorization Act. The Senate Armed Services Committee version of the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act provides $514 billion for national defense in Fiscal Year 2015. This includes $496 billion for the Department of Defense, DOD, base budget and $17.7 billion for national security programs. This bill contains several important provisions. It includes a provision to keep the A-10, a vital close air support combat aircraft. This provision would strictly prohibit the U.S. Air Force from retiring A-10 airplanes for 1 year and fully fund the flight hours, pilot training, fuel, maintenance, and operations for all A-10 pilots and crew through 2015. Additionally, this bill contains three different provisions that would improve the prospects of competition for military space launch and help move the Pentagon away from using taxpayer dollars to purchase rocket engines from Russia. Finally, this bill includes a provision that would eliminate wasteful spending in Department of Defense, DOD, IT systems. Before DOD is allowed to spend millions of dollars on new IT projects, the department must identify and eliminate old IT systems first. These are just a few of the important provisions that have been included in this year's NDAA. The Senate Armed Services Committee began consideration of the defense authorization bill immediately after the President submitted his fiscal year 2015 budget request. Over the course of 4 months, the committee conducted several hearings, held countless briefings, and then met for 3 solid days in markup to produce this legislation. The bill was approved by the committee on May 22 and is ready to be debated, amended, and passed so that we may conference with the House on their version of the bill. I strongly urge the majority leader to bring this important bill to the Senate floor for debate. A failure to move to the defense authorization bill as soon as possible is a failure to recognize the critical national security importance signified through the strong bipartisan support this bill has enjoyed in this Chamber over the past five decades.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I want to pay tribute to an exceptional leader, public servant, patriot, and friend. Earlier this week, ADM Charles Larson passed away after a 2-year battle against leukemia. This morning, we said goodbye to him as he was memorialized and laid to rest at the U.S. Naval Academy Cemetery in Annapolis. Although it is always hard to lose a friend, and it is certainly proper to mourn, I also want to celebrate his life and his tremendous accomplishments and contributions to the Navy, Naval Academy, and Nation. Chuck and I were good friends, flight school roommates, and both members of the Class of 1958. An Eagle Scout, brigade commander and class president, he continued his meteoric trajectory, becoming the first naval officer selected as a White House Fellow and the second youngest officer to be promoted to the flag rank. On top of his operational commands, he also served as naval aide to President Richard Nixon. Chuck was bright, extremely talented, and never shied away from a challenge. For instance, after earning his pilot wings and doing a tour aboard the USS Shangri-la, he decided to go to nuclear power school to become a submariner and be at the tactical tip of the Cold War. Similarly, instead of pursuing a lucrative civilian job after finishing his tour as the commander in chief, U.S. Pacific Command, he took on what he considered his most challenging but rewarding job of his career, returning to his alma mater for a second tour as the superintendent. A man of unparalleled character and vision, Admiral Larson wanted to refocus the academy to be ``an ethical beacon for the nation.'' He established the Character Development Division and implemented innovative ethical and character-enhancing programs and initiatives to both the curriculum and student life. His devotion to the academy and midshipmen went beyond his two tenures at the helm, serving as the chairman of the U.S. Naval Academy Foundation for nearly a decade after his retirement. Chuck was more than a renowned four-star admiral; he was a friend to many, husband to Sally, father to Sigrid, Erica, and Kirsten, and grandfather to seven beautiful children. I join many past and present members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Class of 1958, the Naval Academy family, and thousands of military personnel who have served under and alongside Chuck in extending our most sincere gratitude for his legacy of excellence and ethical leadership. Fair winds and following seas, Admiral Larson. You will be missed, but not forgotten.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate is taking action this week on two extremely important measures for our Nation's veterans. First, Congress is poised to pass the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act. This compromise, bipartisan legislation will, for the first time, provide our Nation's veterans who cannot easily get into a Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, health care facility, the ability that most Americans already have: to choose their own doctor. I am also extremely pleased that the legislation allows senior managers of the VA to be fired if they fail to do their jobs. The Senate is also set to approve the nomination of Mr. Robert McDonald to head the VA. As important as our legislation is for fixing the VA, we cannot legislate a change in culture. Only the head of an agency can reform a toxic culture that allowed veterans to die on wait lists while senior officials lied in order to collect their bonuses. I have met with Mr. McDonald and we see eye to eye on the massive problems that need to be fixed and the challenges that lie ahead. I am confident he is the right person with the right experience to lead the VA during this challenging time. He is a veteran himself but also has decades of private sector management experience that will serve him well in implementing the Veterans Choice Card and repairing the culture of the VA to focus on the veteran and restore honesty and accountability to that workforce. I thank him for accepting this challenge to serve the Nation again and look forward to working with him in the days ahead.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. That is absolutely my conviction, that the reason why we have emergency funding from time to time in times of crisis is for when there is an emergency. I will repeat: I do not know of a greater domestic emergency than the care we owe the men and women who have served this country. I thank my colleague. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could I say that I understand the frustration the chairman of the committee feels, and this has been, for everyone involved, a very frustrating process. I think to some degree the real effort has been diverted on this whole issue of the pay-fors, the cost of this legislation. I fully understand the frustration of the Senator from Vermont, the distinguished chairman of the committee. I would hope we could maybe, all of us, cool down some and maybe go to this meeting at noon, and ahead of time--as far ahead of time as is possible--tell the chairman what their proposal is and also a counterproposal of Senator Sanders' would be fully considered by the conference as well. It is the proper process to go to a conference. Unfortunately, we only did that once, and that was largely a pro forma kind of activity. Again, I fully appreciate Senator Sanders, who has worked very hard on this very terrible issue. But I hope all of my colleagues recognize that for us to not come to agreement on legislation which is not that dissimilar, which passed this body 93 to 3, and over on the House side I believe it was unanimous, is a gross disservice to those who deserve our consideration most. There is no group of citizens in this country who deserve our help in this time of crisis more than our veterans, the men and women who have served. So may I say to my friend from Vermont, who, like me, is very given to calm deliberation of all issues, we are very similar in that respect. I say, with some humor, I hope, that I hope we can go to this conference at noon today and sit down together, and listen to the various proposals. I believe the fundamentals, as were passed by this body on a 93-to-3 vote, should be a basis for largely the final legislation we reach. The other body's legislation is strikingly similar. It seems to me where we have a difference is how much additional funding to the fundamentals of the legislation we are considering. I was watching my friend from Vermont on the floor here. I want to say to him, I fully understand his frustration. I hope we will be able to sit down at noon with both Republicans and Democrats, both sides of the aisle, with the overriding priority of not leaving and going out into an August recess without acting on this issue. Veterans are dying. There are allegations that 40 veterans in my State at the Phoenix VA hospital died because they did not receive care. There is not a policy/ academic issue here. This is the very lives of the men and women who are serving. I guess for the third time I would say to my colleague, and I will yield to him in just a second: I would be more than happy to look at what we have proposed and what has passed through this body, as compared to what the other side of the Capitol is proposing. Perhaps we can come to some agreement and compromise, which is the way we are supposed to pass laws in this body. I ask unanimous consent to yield to Senator Sanders.

Mr. McCAIN. Well, could I say to my friend from Vermont, I believe it is a matter of simple courtesy, that the Senator, as the chairman of a committee, should be asked to come to a meeting with the other major chairmen and ranking members of the committees. I hope that kind of thing does not happen again. What I would like to see--and I beg my colleagues to sit down and let's work this out. It is a matter of money. It is not a matter of the provisions of the bill. That cannot be the reason for us not to reach some agreement. I intend at noon to attend. I intend to make a strong case that we would be glad to hear any proposal by the chairmen and ranking members on the other side of the Capitol, and that we would have a counterproposal and maybe could start a discussion and dialog which could lead to an agreement.

Mr. McCAIN. I would be more than glad to do that, I would say to my friend from Vermont. I would also like to say I hope the participation of a number of people would lead us to some agreement today. Because once we reach an agreement, then, of course, we have to go through the normal votes and all of the things that require some period of time. I want to say to my friends who are deeply concerned about the costs here of some of these provisions: My argument is that, yes, we should seek ways to pay for as much as we can. I believe we can compromise on some areas of spending. But we cannot allow that alone to prevent us from acting. I thank my friend from Vermont. I look forward to engaging with him. I think maybe it is important that we show courtesy to all Members who are involved in this, including the chairman of the committee. I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I was saddened to learn recently of the passing of Judge Robert C. Broomfield, who served on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona for nearly 30 years, including as chief judge on that court from 1994 to 1999. During his impressive tenure on the Federal bench, Judge Broomfield was known for his outstanding work improving the administration of our Nation's court system. He was instrumental in bringing the Sandra Day O'Connor Courthouse to Phoenix, where a special memorial service will be held today in the Special Proceedings Courtroom named in his honor. Judge Broomfield was an outstanding public servant and a well-respected jurist, and his work will continue to have a lasting impact on our State for years to come. He will be greatly missed by his family, friends, and all those who had the pleasure of working with him.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Florida and I thank him for his advocacy for freedom and democracy throughout the world. Frankly, I have been incredibly impressed with his knowledge and depth, including in our own hemisphere, which I think he and I would agree has been very much ignored. There are enormous challenges ahead there as well. I would ask a couple of questions of my friend from Tennessee and my friend from South Carolina. Isn't it true that in order to have a true nuclear capability you have to have a warhead and you have to have a delivery system, and the Iranians are proceeding apace forward in acquiring those capabilities? Would anybody believe that if they were truly interested in not going to nuclear weapons, they would not be spending time and effort on that capability? Doesn't that destroy any credibility they might have about a commitment to not continue the development of nuclear weapons?

Mr. McCAIN. I would ask my friend from Tennessee, was he surprised and shocked that there would be an extension of these negotiations? Was he shocked and surprised that the end date is now after the midterm elections that we have in the United States of America? Was he shocked that even though there has not been ``sufficient progress,'' there was still more relaxation of the sanctions, which then gives the Iranians billions of dollars worth of a boost to their economy? Was he surprised and shocked that this extension took place?

Mr. McCAIN. Finally, could I ask the Senator from Florida, we judge nations by their behavior, I believe. In fact, we don't view them in a vacuum. For example, the President of the United States said that if Syria crossed the red line in the use of chemical weapons, we would have to respond, and obviously we didn't. Meanwhile, 170,000 people have been slaughtered--men, women, and children. So isn't it appropriate for us to not look at the Iranians in a very narrow spectrum but to look at overall behavior going all the way back to the bombing of the barracks in Beirut, the USS Cole, and a plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador here? And maybe the worst, most of all, is the Revolutionary Guard that has gone into Syria and the incredible flow of weapons and training on the part of the Iranians which has turned the tide in favor of Bashar al-Assad. What about the Iranian missiles, some of which are threatening and raining down on Israel. Shouldn't we understand better? Shouldn't the American people and the world understand better what we are dealing with--a country with leaders who are dedicated to the extinction of everything we stand for and believe in? Therefore, wouldn't that impact our calculations as to their sincerity about a nuclear weapons program?

Mr. McCAIN. I would ask again, going full circle with the Senator from South Carolina, wouldn't we actually be helping the administration at the negotiating table to say wait a minute, we have a Congress full of people who have spent a lot of time on this issue, are very skeptical and, one, are going to have to be convinced of this deal? Wouldn't we actually be strengthening the United States' hand at the bargaining table, in the Senator's view, if it were something of this magnitude that Congress would have to be involved in, as we have been in other major treaties that have been made, some of them much less significant than this agreement?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Tennessee. As the Senator from South Carolina noted, the relationship that exists between the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from New Jersey, I believe, has reinvigorated the Foreign Relations Committee in a very incredible way. What has taken place, thanks to that bipartisanship and hard work, has really been some remarkable results. Frankly, thanks to the Senator's leadership and under the chairman, we have been able to have a significant impact on the conduct of national security in what I would argue is probably the greatest turmoil in my lifetime. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his great work.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Florida and I thank him for his advocacy for freedom and democracy throughout the world. Frankly, I have been incredibly impressed with his knowledge and depth, including in our own hemisphere, which I think he and I would agree has been very much ignored. There are enormous challenges ahead there as well. I would ask a couple of questions of my friend from Tennessee and my friend from South Carolina. Isn't it true that in order to have a true nuclear capability you have to have a warhead and you have to have a delivery system, and the Iranians are proceeding apace forward in acquiring those capabilities? Would anybody believe that if they were truly interested in not going to nuclear weapons, they would not be spending time and effort on that capability? Doesn't that destroy any credibility they might have about a commitment to not continue the development of nuclear weapons?

Mr. McCAIN. I would ask my friend from Tennessee, was he surprised and shocked that there would be an extension of these negotiations? Was he shocked and surprised that the end date is now after the midterm elections that we have in the United States of America? Was he shocked that even though there has not been ``sufficient progress,'' there was still more relaxation of the sanctions, which then gives the Iranians billions of dollars worth of a boost to their economy? Was he surprised and shocked that this extension took place?

Mr. McCAIN. Finally, could I ask the Senator from Florida, we judge nations by their behavior, I believe. In fact, we don't view them in a vacuum. For example, the President of the United States said that if Syria crossed the red line in the use of chemical weapons, we would have to respond, and obviously we didn't. Meanwhile, 170,000 people have been slaughtered--men, women, and children. So isn't it appropriate for us to not look at the Iranians in a very narrow spectrum but to look at overall behavior going all the way back to the bombing of the barracks in Beirut, the USS Cole, and a plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador here? And maybe the worst, most of all, is the Revolutionary Guard that has gone into Syria and the incredible flow of weapons and training on the part of the Iranians which has turned the tide in favor of Bashar al-Assad. What about the Iranian missiles, some of which are threatening and raining down on Israel. Shouldn't we understand better? Shouldn't the American people and the world understand better what we are dealing with--a country with leaders who are dedicated to the extinction of everything we stand for and believe in? Therefore, wouldn't that impact our calculations as to their sincerity about a nuclear weapons program?

Mr. McCAIN. I would ask again, going full circle with the Senator from South Carolina, wouldn't we actually be helping the administration at the negotiating table to say wait a minute, we have a Congress full of people who have spent a lot of time on this issue, are very skeptical and, one, are going to have to be convinced of this deal? Wouldn't we actually be strengthening the United States' hand at the bargaining table, in the Senator's view, if it were something of this magnitude that Congress would have to be involved in, as we have been in other major treaties that have been made, some of them much less significant than this agreement?