John McCain

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, as we know, yesterday the majority leader announced that he plans to delay the start of the August recess by 2 weeks. He stated that this delay is necessary in order to ``complete action on important legislative items and process nominees that have been stalled by a lack of cooperation from our friends on the other side of the aisle.'' Those are the majority leader's words. I have no problem with the leader's decision. I will happily stay here an additional 2 weeks. I will stay 3, 4, or even 5 weeks as long as we have a plan to address the serious issues that face this Nation. My friends, when the Senate completes its work this week, we will have considered a whopping total this entire week of three nominations, one of them being a noncontroversial district judge nominee on which the majority leader was forced to file cloture. That cloture vote was unanimous, 97 to 0. Yet we were still forced to burn postcloture time-- 30 hours--before being allowed to vote earlier today on his confirmation--a vote that was again unanimous at 100 to 0. What? That is the way we are doing business in the Senate? I will repeat. The vote to stop debate was 97 to 0 after 30 hours. After we burned 30 hours, then we were allowed to vote earlier today--a vote that was again unanimous at 100 to 0. Why? We have a war on. We have men and women in harm's way. We have nominees stacked up, and so we are spending an entire week with three nominees. So with an incredible act of another chapter in ``Profiles in Courage,'' rather than say, OK, we will stay here Friday, we will stay here Saturday, we will stay here Sunday, but by God we are going to do the people's business--we are not doing the people's business. I can't go through all the machinations between the Democratic leader and our majority leader, and I can't go through all the tos and fros and all of that, but I am supposed to go back and speak to a high school civics class and say: I am happy to be here. I have had a very tough week this week in the Senate, my young friends who may want to be engaged in public service someday, and we voted on a district judge 97 to 0. Thirty hours later, we were allowed to vote on his nomination, and the vote was 100 to 0. That is what the Senate is supposed to do? There was no reason why we needed to take 3 days on this nominee. I say to my friend the Democratic leader and I say to the Republican leader: This type of obstruction has gone on long enough, and it has to stop. As I said, I am happy to stay here for the entire August recess to do the work the American people sent us here to do, but we must first have a plan of what we are going to do and how. What are we to say to the American people if we stay here for several weeks, have no legislative plan, and accomplish nothing? We have been in for 6 months now. What have we done? We have done Gorsuch, and we have done Gorsuch, and we have done Gorsuch, and we have repealed some regulations--all of it with my party in control of all three branches of government. I am not proud to go back to Arizona and talk about that record of nonaccomplishment. Right now, we have no consensus on how to repeal and replace the failed policies of ObamaCare. I can't tell you the number of hours I have heard the same arguments go around and around and around and around. As far as I know, there is no consensus on how to best fund the government, no plan to do a bipartisan budget deal, and no path forward on appropriations bills. This is disgraceful. What I am asking for is simple. If we are going to stay here to work, then let's get some work done. Why aren't we working now? Why aren't we working tonight? There are nominees in the Department of Defense who are before this body, and we are in a war, and what are we doing? We are doing a vote on a district judge that we took 30 hours--30 hours-- to discuss. If we are going to stay here, let's get the work done. Let's come in early, stay late, negotiate a healthcare bill, and process nominations to make sure the administration is adequately staffed so the executive branch can function. Let's renew FDA user fees to streamline the regulatory process for lifesaving prescription drugs. Let's fund the Veterans Choice Program to ensure our veterans are able to access care in their communities. Let's address the debt limit before we default on our payments. Let's debate, amend, and pass the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act. Perhaps, most importantly, let's get to work on the budget so we can begin moving individual appropriations bills to fund the government and not have to resort to a continuing resolution or omnibus. To those who may be watching, the fact is that a continuing resolution and an omnibus means that we have two choices--yes or no. We don't have an amendment. We don't have a way to improve it. We are talking about trillions of dollars, but we are going to wait until we are right at the edge of the cliff, and then my distinguished friends and leaders on both sides will say: You have to vote aye; you have to vote aye because the government is going to be shut down. I am tired of that choice. We know it is coming. We know the cliff is here. So what did we do this week? We spent 30 hours discussing a district judge--30 hours debating a district judge. Is that the right use of American taxpayers' dollars? Have we no shame? The Senate Armed Services Committee successfully reported out the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act 27 to 0, supporting $650 billion for the base budget for national defense and an additional $60 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations. At these levels, the national defense budget would be $91 billion above the Budget Control Act spending cap. To put it another way, there was unanimous, bipartisan support for an increase in defense spending of the Budget Control Act, capped by more than a quarter of this body--more than a quarter of this body, on both sides of the aisle. In one sense this consensus isn't surprising because after years of budget cuts under the BCA sequestration, our military faces a serious crisis. As we ask them to do more and more in an increasingly dangerous world, Congress has failed to provide our men and women in uniform with the training, resources, and capabilities they need. I will repeat that. Congress has failed to provide our men and women in uniform with the training, resources, and capabilities they need. However, simply passing an authorization bill at higher defense spending levels will not solve the funding problems for our military. We know we must pass a bipartisan budget deal to undo the Budget Control Act caps and set an agreed upon budget top line to allow the appropriations bills to move forward. Absent a bipartisan budget deal, we will be stuck with another continuing resolution, which, I might add, will be below the BCA budget caps for defense, or, worse, we will be facing--guess what--a shutdown of the government. Has it been that long since we had the last shut down? I have come to this floor several times already this year demanding that we start negotiating a budget deal. We are 2 months away from the start of the fiscal year. We know that a budget deal must be done. The failure to begin negotiations means we are knowingly driving toward an outcome that will fund our military at levels below the Budget Control Act caps. I don't understand why we haven't started. It is not because we think the BCA levels are acceptable. It is not because we believe there is a way to responsibly fund the government without adjusting the BCA caps. Even our leader, Senator McConnell, has publicly stated that we will need to adjust the caps. This leads me to believe that there is only one reason why we are stalling negotiations on a budget deal and forcing the government and our military to start the year on a ``continuing resolution'' and that is one word, and that word is ``politics.'' The same tactic that the Democratic leader is employing on nomination stalling is being applied to a budget deal. I find that to be shameful. There is plenty of blame to go around. The White House has also been surprisingly absent. Their own budget submission asked for defense spending above the budget control caps and repeal of the defense sequester, but none of that--none of that--is possible without negotiating a bipartisan budget deal. Yet we have heard nothing from the White House--nothing. Any budget deal that would pass both the House and Senate and be signed by the President will be extremely difficult to negotiate. That is why we should have started long ago, and we must start now. I have been ready and willing all year to begin working. My door and, I know, the majority of my colleagues' doors are open to any Senator, Republican or Democrat, but what we really need is for a select group of key Members to come together with leadership's blessings to begin negotiating. Unless and until this body gets to work on a bipartisan budget deal, we will continue down the path we have been on for years, lurching from crisis to crisis, with no strategy for how to meet our budget responsibilities or fund our national security needs. My friends, colleagues, and fellow Americans, we must summon the political courage to do the hard work the American people expect of us to do a budget the way we are supposed to--a budget that is sufficient to meet the complex threats of today's world. Our brave servicemembers who are facing those threats every single day deserve no less. Finally, every year for many years now, I have taken my time on the Fourth of July to have the honor of spending that national holiday in Afghanistan with the men and women who are serving in the military with courage, sacrifice, and skill. As part of our activities there, we have a townhall meeting with several hundred of the men and women in uniform who are serving. My friend Lindsey Graham, who occasionally has a good idea--once every decade--asked the group: How many of you are here not for the first time? Almost everybody in that room raised their hand. He said: How many of you have been more than twice? Two-thirds of the men in that room raised their hand. He said: How many of you have been here multiple times? A good number of them raised their hand. The point is that they are out there serving time after time after time, away from their homes, away from their families, working more than maybe 2 weeks in August. And what are we doing? What are we doing for them? There are a lot of things they need, and there are a lot of things we need to give them. Yet, somehow, we can't see our way clear-- Republicans and Democrats--to sit down and do the right thing for these men and women--to do the right thing so they can win. We now have a new President, a new National Security Advisor, and a new Secretary of Defense. I don't agree with this President very often, but I do know that this President is committed to rebuilding the military and a winning strategy. The strategy for the last 8 years has been ``don't lose.'' I know that General Mattis and General McMaster are people who want to win, and they have a strategy to win, and we have to be of assistance to them to provide the men and women with what they need to win. So I ask my colleagues, with passion, that we sit down and figure out the budget deal, move forward with it, and not spend a week like we just spent this week with 30 hours in order to confirm one district judge. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Dr. Benjamin Tuggle who served as the regional director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's southwest region. A skilled communicator and accomplished biologist, Dr. Tuggle dedicated more than 38 years of service to advancing the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I had the opportunity to work directly with Dr. Tuggle on a number of issues important to Arizona, including restoring the Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery, which is a key economic asset for Lower Colorado River communities. We may not have always agreed on agency policies, but Dr. Tuggle maintained an open dialogue and willingness to engage directly with local communities. The challenges faced by the service and Region 2 are daunting. Our unique southwest landscape and wildlife are under constant threat from oppressive drought and catastrophic wildfire. Dr. Tuggle was rarely presented with easy decisions to make, but he always labored to strike the right balance between competing interests on complex issues. I thank him for his service.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last week, the Senate voted 97 to 2 to strengthen sanctions against Vladimir Putin's Russia for its attack on America's 2016 election and its other aggressive and illegal behavior. I hope the other body will take swift action to send this legislation to the President's desk. We need strong Russia sanctions now because it has been 8 months since the U.S. intelligence community said publicly that the Russian Government directed this attack on our democracy. Yet, in the last 8 months, the Russian Government has hardly paid any price for its aggression. Thus, Vladimir Putin has been learning all over again that aggression pays. He learned that in Georgia in 2008. He learned that in Ukraine in 2014. He has learned that in Syria since 2015. So Vladimir Putin remains on the offense. This year, Russia attempted to interfere in France's election. We have already seen attempts to influence German public opinion ahead of elections in September. And there is every expectation that Russia will do the same thing in the Czech Republic, Italy, and elsewhere in future elections. But perhaps the most disturbing indication of how far Vladimir Putin is willing to go to advance his dark and dangerous view of the world is what happened in October 2016 in the small Balkan country of Montenegro, when Russian intelligence operatives, in league with Serbia nationalists and others, attempted to overthrow the democratically elected Government of Montenegro and murder its Prime Minister on the country's election day. Why would Vladimir Putin go this far? To answer this, one must understand why Russia was so interested in the outcome of Montenegro's election. Russia opposes the spread of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law across Europe, which is advanced by the European Union and protected by the NATO alliance. To Russia's great frustration, Montenegro's Government had committed the country to a Euro-Atlantic future and pursued membership in both the EU and NATO. Indeed, NATO's invitation to Montenegro to join the NATO alliance in December 2015 was considered particularly insulting and threatening by Moscow. After all, Montenegro had once been part of Russia's traditional Slavic ally, Serbia. Montenegro has long been a favorite destination for Russian tourists. Russian politicians and oligarchs are reported to own as much as 40 percent of the real estate in that country. A few years ago, when it feared losing its naval base in Syria due to the civil war, Russia reportedly sought a naval base in Montenegro but was rejected. Now, if Montenegro joined NATO, the entire Adriatic Sea would fall completely within NATO's borders. Montenegro's accession into NATO would also send a signal that NATO membership was a real possibility for other nations of the Western Balkans--Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and, according to some optimistic voices in the region, perhaps even Serbia. That is why Montenegro's October 16 election was no ordinary one. In Russia's eyes, it was a last chance to stop Montenegro from joining NATO, to thwart Montenegro's pursuit of a Euro-Atlantic future, and to reassert Russian influence in southeastern Europe. That is why there was little doubt that Russia would exert heavy pressure on Montenegro ahead of the election. Russia had already been accused of fomenting anti-government demonstrations and funding opposition parties. Yet few would have guessed how far Russia was willing to go. But now we know. This April, as part of my visit to seven countries in southeastern Europe to reaffirm America's commitment to the region, I visited Montenegro and was briefed by Montenegrin officials on the status of the investigation into the coup attempt. On April 14, Montenegro's special prosecutor filed indictments against 2 Russians and 12 other people for their roles in the coup attempt. This past weekend, a Montenegrin court accepted the indictments. As a result, the evidence before the court is now public. I believe it is critically important that my colleagues and the American people are aware of the allegations made in these indictments. Pieced together, they reveal another blatant attack on democracy by the Russian Government--an attempt to smash a small, brave country that had the nerve to defy its will. And it is another unmistakable warning that Vladimir Putin will do whatever it takes to achieve his ambition to restore the Russian Empire. According to the indictments, the coup planning got off to a slow start in March 2016. That was when opposition leaders in Montenegro allegedly sent an emissary known as Nino to Belgrade to meet with Slavko Nikic. In the first meeting at Slavko's office, Nino said that he had been doing business for years in Russia, and he claimed that he was in contact with powerful men in Russia. He claimed that one of the men with him was a Russian FSB agent in charge of special tasks. Nino tried to enlist Slavko and his men to lead a plot to destabilize Montenegro, and Slavko indicated he was able and willing to participate. Later, Nino and Slavko met on the Pupin Bridge in Belgrade, this time with the supposed FSB agent in tow. The Russian told Slavko it would be good if he traveled to Moscow. After these encounters in Belgrade, Nino enlisted the help of Bratislav Dikic, the former chief of Serbia's special police and someone we will meet later in this story, to use his contacts to check into Slavko's reliability. He didn't pass the test, and this original version of the coup plot was abandoned. It was at this point that the two Russians, Eduard Shishmakov and Vladimir Popov, stepped in to take control of the plans for destabilization operations in Montenegro. Both of these men are believed to be members of the Russian military agency, the GRU. Shishmakov in particular already had a colorful past. In 2014, Shishmakov had been serving as deputy military attache in Russia's Embassy in Warsaw, Poland. After a scandal involving a Russian spy network within the Polish Government, the Polish Government identified Shishmakov as a GRU agent, declared him persona non grata, and ejected him from Poland. Having taken over the Montenegrin operation, Shishmakov moved quickly to contact Sasa Sindjelic. The two had first met in Russia back in 2014, when they discussed their opposition to the EU and NATO. Shishmakov even offered to help support Sindjelic's organization, the Serbian Wolves, which promotes Pan-Slavism and close relations between Russians and Serbs and opposes NATO and the Government of Montenegro. The two met again in Moscow in 2015. This time, Shishmakov had Sindjelic submitted to a polygraph test that lasted for hours. After the test went well, he sent Sindjelic home with $5,000 and a promise to contact him if something urgent came up. That was in the spring of 2016. Shishmakov wrote that Montenegro's Prime Minister, Milo Djukanovic, and his government must be removed immediately and that the people of Montenegro must rebel in order for this to happen. Then in September 2016, Shishmakov told Sindjelic to urgently come to Moscow. Shishmakov even sent $800 to Sindjelic to buy his ticket. It was no trouble for Shishmakov to send the money--after all, he sent it from a Western Union conveniently located on the same street as GRU headquarters in Moscow. Once in Moscow, Shishmakov and Sindjelic discussed the planning and operation of the plot to overthrow the Montenegrin Government, install the opposition in power, and abandon all plans for Montenegro to enter NATO. Shishmakov said opposition leaders from Montenegro had already visited Moscow a number of times and were in agreement with the plan. In total, Sindjelic received more than $200,000 to support the operation. He used those funds to pay personnel, acquire police uniforms and equipment, and purchase weapons, including rifles, gas masks, bulletproof vests, electrical tranquilizers, and a drone with a camera. He was also provided encrypted phones to enable secure communications between the coup plotters and GRU agents. Sindjelic and Shishmakov stayed in close touch as preparations continued ahead of the October elections. The plan was this: On election day, the Montenegrin opposition was planning large protests in front of the Parliament, expecting to draw nearly 5,000 people. Sindjelic and his coconspirators, including Bratislav Dikic, the former commander of the Serbian special police, would recruit as many Serbian nationalists as they could to travel from Serbia to Montenegro to join the demonstrations. They were hoping 500 would join the protests and be ready to act when called upon. As the protests were underway, a group of 50 armed men recruited by Shishmakov and wearing police uniforms provided by Sindjelic would ambush and kill the members of Montenegro's Special Anti-Terrorist Unit to prevent them from interfering with the coup. The armed men, still wearing their police uniforms, would then proceed to the Parliament building, where they would begin shooting at members of the police defending the Parliament building. They hoped to create the impression that some members of the police were changing sides and joining the protesters against the government. As the coup plotters saw it, this was poetic justice--reminiscent of how former Serbian President and convicted war criminal Slobodan Milosevic had fallen from power. Led by the coup plotters and the Serbian nationalists, who would wear blue ribbons to be recognizable to one another, the protesters would then storm the Parliament building and declare victory for the opposition. Within 48 hours, the new government would be formed and arrests would be made across the capital, including Prime Minister Djukanovic. If the Prime Minister could not be captured, he would be killed. The coup plotters obviously wanted to create chaos, and it appears they may have had someone in mind to blame for the violence. Ahead of the election, the Montenegrin opposition hired a U.S. company to provide services, including countersurveillance and planning to extract personnel from the Montenegrin capital, around the time of the election. It is still unclear, the precise nature of this outreach to the U.S. company by the Montenegrin opposition or what services the company may have ended up providing, if any. Now, this is speculation, but if I know the Russians, American security personnel--some likely to have military or intelligence background--on the ground during the coup in the Montenegrin capital would have made excellent patsies for stories on Sputnik and Russia Today. Fortunately--one might even say luckily--the plan never got off the ground. Four days before election day, one of the coup plotters got cold feet and informed the Montenegrin authorities. On election day, Montenegrin police arrested 20 Serbian citizens, including the on-the- ground leader of the nationalist protesters, Bratislav Dikic, the former commander of the Serbian special police. News of the arrests sparked fear among others involved in the plot, many of whom retreated to Serbia. Furious that the plot had been disrupted, Shishmakov, the Russian GRU agent, grasped at straws for new ways of bringing down the Montenegrin Government. He ordered Sindjelic to procure an assassin to kill the Prime Minister. Sindjelic did not carry out that order and later turned himself into police, fearing he would be next for assassination by the GRU. Shishmakov also ordered a false flag attack on the opposition party headquarters to create the appearance of an attack by the government. He even hoped to entice one of the political parties that was part of the Prime Minister's coalition to leave the government with a bribe using Russian money funneled through Chechnya. Again, fortunately none of this worked. Montenegrin police made several arrests in the aftermath of this failed coup attempt, but those arrests did not include the alleged GRU agents, Mr. Shishmakov and Mr. Popov. They were in Belgrade, Serbia's capital. Presumably, Montenegrin authorities hoped the Serbian Government would consider expediting the pair to Montenegro as the government had done with some of the lower level coup plotters, but that did not happen, and the two Russian agents returned to Moscow. I know that sounded a little complicated. Every American should be disturbed by what happened in Montenegro. We should admire the courage of the country's leaders who resisted Russian pressure and persevered to bring Montenegro into the NATO alliance, which finally took place officially 2 weeks ago. If there is one thing we should take away from this heinous plot, it is that we cannot treat Russia's interference in America's election in 2016 as an isolated incident. We have to stop looking at this through the warped lens of politics and see this attack on our democracy for what it is--just one phase of Vladimir Putin's long-term campaign to weaken the United States, to destabilize Europe, to break the NATO alliance, to undermine confidence in Western values, and to erode any and all resistance to his dark and dangerous view of the world. That is why Putin attacked our 2016 election. That is why Putin attempted to overthrow the Government of Montenegro. That is why he tried to influence the election in France and will try the same in Germany and elsewhere throughout Europe. That is why it probably will not be long before Putin attempts some punitive actions in Montenegro to show other countries in the Western Balkans what happens when you try to defy Russia. That is why it will not be long before Putin takes interest in another American election. The victim may be a Republican. It may be a Democrat. To Putin, it will not matter as long as he succeeds in dividing us from one another, weakening our resolve, undermining confidence in ourselves, and eroding our belief in our own values. I urge my colleagues again that we must take our own side in this fight, not as Republicans, not as Democrats but as Americans. It is time to respond to Russia's attack on American democracy and that of our European allies with strength, with resolve, with common purpose, and with action. I would like to finally add we will be holding a hearing in the Armed Services Committee on this whole situation that took place in Montenegro. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, every indication, I would say to my friend from Florida, a most valued member of the Armed Services Committee, they will continue to try to interfere in any election they possibly can. They are spending large amounts of money. They have certainly, to some degree, undermined confidence between countries in the NATO alliance, and that, coupled with the degree of uncertainty here in Washington, has probably put as great a strain on the NATO alliance as you have seen since its very beginning. I thank my colleague from Florida.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would just say to my colleague from Florida that when you look at their early attempts versus their latest attempts, they learn with every experience. It is a lot easier--as my colleague from Florida knows, it is a lot easier to play offense than defense. We are going to have a hearing on this whole Montenegrin thing, and I know the Senator from Florida will play a very significant role. Every time we turn around, we have a new revelation of some of the activities that have been carried out, not just by Russian hackers but by Chinese, by Iranian, even by single individuals. This is probably the national security challenge that may not be the greatest, but I would say we are the least prepared for.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess, following my and Senator Nelson's remarks, until 5 p.m. for the all-Senators briefing and that the time count postcloture.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak on issues not associated with the present subject of debate.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to congratulate Larry Voyles, the former executive director of the Arizona Game and Fish Department, for his 40 years of dedicated service to the State of Arizona and the Nation. Larry recently retired from the helm of my home State's wildlife management agency. He leaves with a litany of accolades and achievements that underscore a remarkable career. During his time at the department, Larry also served in a variety of national posts that advanced Federal policies important to outdoor sports and wildlife conservation, including as president of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Larry first began at the department as a district manager and eventually ascended to become the agency's top training officer and later a regional director before being selected by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission to serve as the executive director for the past 8 years. Faced with daunting challenges like regional drought and catastrophic wildfires, Larry proved time and again that the department understands how to care for the land and the large variety of animal life in the Grand Canyon State. Larry also knows the importance of safeguarding a State's right to manage wildlife populations without undue interference from the Federal Government, and he remains a tireless advocate for sportsmen community and those pursuing meaningful wildlife conservation. I thank Larry, my friend, for his honorable service at the Arizona Department of Game and Fish and wish him the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I honor a superb leader, liaison, and warrior. After more than 2 years of service as Director of the Navy Senate Liaison Office, CAPT Sara Annette Joyner is very deservedly moving on and moving up to assume the responsibilities of a rear admiral, lower half. On this occasion, I believe it is fitting to recognize Captain Joyner's distinguished service and dedication to fostering the relationship between the U.S. Navy and this Chamber. Captain Joyner is a 1989 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. An attack pilot by designation, Captain Joyner has not only been training and teaching to fight aerial adversaries, she has been attacking history. Call sign ``Clutch,'' Captain Joyner is a groundbreaking leader, as the Navy's first female strike fighter squadron commanding officer at VFA-105 and the first female Carrier Air Wing Commander at CVW-3 aboard the USS Harry S. Truman. Captain Joyner has held numerous other leadership positions in the Navy, including assignment as the joint strike fighter requirements officer, with the CNO's strategic studies group, and most recently as director, Navy Senate liaison, from 2015 to 2017. Over the course of the last 3 years, Captain Joyner has led 37 Congressional Delegations to 47 different countries. She has escorted 44 Members of Congress and over 48 personal and professional staff members. I have had the pleasure of traveling with Captain Joyner on many of these trips. She has distinguished herself by going above and beyond the call of duty to facilitate and successfully execute each and every trip, despite any number of weather, aircraft, and diplomatic complications. This Chamber will feel Captain Joyner's absence. I join many past and present Members of Congress in my gratitude and appreciation to Captain Joyner for her outstanding leadership and unwavering support of the missions of the U.S. Navy, and especially to her patient and supportive family, Commander James ``Bud'' Mitchell Joyner, Sara Elizabeth Joyner, and Mark Samuel Joyner, I wish ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Russian sanctions amendment passed by this body 97 to 2 last year--I take it the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Virginia were here at the time; it was one person who was not--was negotiated between Senators of both parties on multiple committees, including Foreign Relations, Banking, and Armed Services. It was specifically designed to impose tough sanctions on Russian defense and intelligence sectors, to impose tough sanctions on the Russian military industrial complex and intelligence agencies that have made it possible for Russia to invade Ukraine, annex Crimea, terrorize Syria, threaten our NATO allies, and attack America's election in 2016. Have no doubt about what this amendment is, my dear colleagues and friends. It is a giveaway to the Russian military industrial complex. There has always been a collection of lawmakers, executives, and lobbyists who have accepted continuing, even deepening, our Nation's dependence on Russian rocket engines. That is exactly what will happen if we allow this amendment to pass, and the door will once again fly open for taxpayer dollars to be used to subsidize purchases of Russian rocket engines--purchases which line the pockets of Vladimir Putin's cronies. My friends, if you want to vote to buy more Russian rocket engines, just say it. That is fine. That is fine with me, but to cloak it in some kind of bipartisan agreement that somehow we are going to have to continue to buy these Russian rocket engines, after we had an agreement last year 97 to 2--97 to 2--what does this do? This undoes last year's 97-to-2 agreement. We don't need this amendment to meet America's needs in space. As a result of last year's bipartisan agreement and the NDAA, the Department of Defense is on a path to gradually eliminate dependence on Russia as quickly as possible while fostering competition among American companies. NASA needs to do the same. NASA needs to do the same. NASA needs to do the same. Sanctions, by definition, require tradeoffs. Sanctions are not free. Countries that impose sanctions must be willing to pay a cost, too, if and when a greater principle, a great national security interest, is at stake. Let me conclude because I note the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the ranking member here. There are costs and tradeoffs the United States has been asking our European allies to make in the last few years. We have leaned on France to cancel a sale of naval vessels to Russia. We have been warning Central and Eastern European allies against deepening their dependence on Russian energy with various energy deals and infrastructure projects. We should not be asking our allies to make these sacrifices unless we are prepared to do the same. We will probably pass this amendment. If there is ever a doubt in any of our constituents' minds about the influence of special interests, it will be with passage of this amendment--which, by the way, with all due respect to my friends and colleagues, was the one thing they didn't want. The one thing they didn't want was an on-the-record vote on this amendment, which is why I am confident it will lose, but I want every Member of the U.S. Senate to look in the eyes of the mother whose son was just killed by a Russian sniper, as I did, down in Mariupol not too long ago. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I know how it is going to come out, but Members of the U.S. Senate will at least be on record. I say this is not the most courageous chapter in the history of this institution. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Tennessee and my friend from Maryland. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise in support of the Countering Russian Aggression and Cyber Attacks Act, an amendment to the Iran sanctions bill currently under consideration. In just the last 3 years under Vladimir Putin, Russia has invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, threatened NATO allies, and intervened militarily in Syria, leaving a trail of death, destruction, and broken promises in his wake. And of course, last year, Russia attacked the foundations of American democracy with a cyber and information campaign to interfere in America's 2016 election. It has been 8 months now since the U.S. intelligence community publicly concluded that the Russian Government had attempted to interfere in our last Presidential election. Since then, the intelligence community has concluded that it is confident that the Russian Government directed a campaign to compromise emails, American individuals, and political organizations; that Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign to undermine public faith in the democratic process; and that Moscow will apply lessons learned from this campaign to future influence efforts worldwide, including against U.S. allies and their election processes. Months of congressional hearings, testimony, and investigative work have reinforced these conclusions that Russia deliberately interfered in our recent election with cyber attacks and a disinformation campaign designed to weaken America and undermine faith in our democracy and our values. Vladimir Putin's brazen attack on our democracy is a flagrant demonstration of his disdain and disrespect for our Nation. This should not just outrage every American; it should, at long last, compel us to action. In the last 8 months, what price has Russia paid for attacking American democracy? Hardly any at all: Modest sanctions against a few Russian individuals and entities, some Russian diplomats and spies sent home to Russia, two spy compounds closed, at least for now--and all of this is reversible at the discretion of the President. We must take our own side in this fight, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans. It is time to respond to Russia's attack on American democracy with strength, with resolve, with common purpose and with action. So I am proud to support this amendment, which would begin to do just that. This legislation incorporates some of the best ideas from different pieces of legislation already introduced in the Senate, ideas that have broad bipartisan support. The amendment would impose mandatory sanctions on transactions with the Russian defense or intelligence sectors, including the FSB and the GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency that was primarily responsible for Russia's attack on our election. The amendment would impose mandatory visa bans and asset freezes on any individual who undermines the cyber security of public or private infrastructure and democratic institutions, and it would impose mandatory sanctions on those who assist or support such activities. The amendment would codify existing sanctions on Russia by placing into law Executive orders signed by President Obama in response to both Russian interference in the 2016 election and its illegal actions in Ukraine, and it would take new steps to tighten those sanctions. The amendment would target the Russian energy sector, which is controlled by Vladimir Putin's cronies, with sanctions on investments in Russian petroleum and natural gas development, as well as Russian energy pipelines. We also need to put additional pressure on the ability of Putin and his cronies to move money they have looted from the Russian state. So this amendment would mandate that the Secretary of the Treasury establish a high-level task force within the Department's financial crimes and enforcement network that would focus on tracing, mapping, and prosecuting illicit financial flows linked to Russia, if such flows interact with the U.S. financial system. The task force would also work with liaison officers in key U.S. embassies, especially in Europe, to work with local authorities to uncover and prosecute the networks responsible for the illicit Russian financial flows. Finally, recognizing that Russia seeks to undermine not just American democracy but Western democracy altogether, this amendment would provide support to the State Department, Global Engagement Center, and USAID to help build the resilience of democratic institutions in Europe against Russian aggression exerted through corruption, propaganda, and other forms of political interference. Importantly, the legislation also mandates congressional oversight of any decision to provide any relief from these sanctions. Administrations cannot waive or lift these sanctions without certifying that Russia is making concrete steps toward changing its behavior on the international stage. In particular, Russia needs to begin adhering to the Minsk Protocol, roll back its occupation of Crimea and destabilizing efforts in Ukraine, and cease its cyber operations aimed at undermining democracy in the United States and Europe. We need a strong Russia sanctions amendment, we need it now, and we need it on this piece of legislation. We need this amendment because we have no time to waste. The United States of America needs to send a strong message to Vladimir Putin and any other aggressor that we will not tolerate attacks on our democracy. There is no greater threat to our freedoms than attacks on our ability to choose our own leaders, free from foreign interference, and so we must act accordingly and we must act now. I would like to thank my friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle--one of the really great remaining members of the Communist Party--who has allowed me to speak and give this statement. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the resolution before us. It has obviously been tried before, and I think there is no doubt that if it were to pass, this could pose a very dangerous threat to our relationship with Saudi Arabia at a time when the Iranians have now achieved a peninsula all the way across from Tehran all the way to Baghdad, and there is no doubt that the Iranians have continued their aggressive behavior. If we vote down this arms sale to Saudi Arabia, it would have a devastating effect on our standing in the Middle East and a long-term impact on our ability to counter what is clearly Iranian aggressive behavior. So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017. For too long, a myopic focus on the Iran deal blinded the United States to Iran's persistent campaign to destabilize the Middle East and undermine America's national security interests. Iran has been given a free pass to detain U.S. sailors in clear violation of international law, conduct ballistic missile tests in violation of the United Nations resolutions, support terrorist groups across the region, and prop up the murderous Assad regime in Syria. It is long past time for the United States and the international community to hold Iran accountable, not just for its commitments under the nuclear deal but for its destabilizing behavior across the Middle East. This legislation begins to do just that by imposing new sanctions on Iran's ballistic missile program, applying terrorism sanctions to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, imposing sanctions on Iranians engaged in human rights abuses, and tightening enforcement on arms embargoes on the Iranian regime. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senators Corker and Cardin, for ringing this bill to the floor. They recognize that the United States must not stand idly by when hostile regimes undermine and attack our interests and that of our allies. They recognize that regimes that aid and abet crimes against humanity must be held accountable. They recognize that weakness in the face of aggression is provocative. These are the reasons we must pass this legislation, but these are also the very same reasons this legislation must be amended to strengthen and expand sanctions against Vladimir Putin's Russia. In just the last 3 years under Vladimir Putin, Russia has invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, threatened NATO allies, and intervened militarily in Syria, leaving a trail of death, destruction, and broken promises in its wake. Last year, Russia attacked the foundations of American democracy with a cyber and information campaign to interfere in America's 2016 election. It has been 8 months now since the U.S. intelligence community publicly concluded that the Russian Government had attempted to interfere in our last Presidential election. On October 7, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated that the ``U.S. intelligence community is confident that the Russian government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations.'' The statement concluded that ``only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.'' On January 6, 2017, the U.S. intelligence community went even further, concluding: Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the United States presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the United States democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. The intelligence community ``did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election,'' but they did warn that ``Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin- ordered campaign aimed at the U.S. Presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against U.S. allies and their election processes.'' Since January, months of congressional hearings, testimony, and investigative work have reinforced these conclusions: that Russia deliberately interfered in our recent election with cyber attacks and a disinformation campaign designed to weaken America and undermine faith in our democracy and our values. Vladimir Putin's brazen attack on our democracy is a flagrant demonstration of his disdain and disrespect for our Nation. This should not just outrage every American, it should compel us to action. But in the last 8 months, what price has Russia paid for attacking American democracy? Hardly any at all: modest sanctions against a few Russian individuals and entities, some Russian diplomats and spies sent home to Russia, two spy compounds have closed, at least for now--and all of this reversible and at the discretion of the President. What has Russia's reaction been to America's tepid response and reaction to its aggressive behavior? More of the same. More aggression, more meddling. Russia attempted to overthrow the democratically elected Government of Montenegro and murder its Prime Minister. Russia attempted to interfere in France's election. We have already seen attempts to influence German public opinion ahead of the elections in September, and there is every expectation that Russia will do the same thing in the Czech Republic, Italy, and elsewhere in future elections. Sooner or later, my friends, there will be another American election that captures Russian attention and interest. The victim may be a Republican or a Democrat. To Putin, it won't matter because his targets are not Republicans or Democrats but Americans and all that we stand for as a people. He seeks to sow dissent amongst us and divide us from one another, to erode our resolve to resist his dark and dangerous view of the world, and to undermine our confidence in ourselves and our belief in our own values. We must take our own side in this fight--not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans. It is time to respond to Russia's attack on American democracy with strength and resolve, with common purpose, and with action. Together with Senator Graham and a number of other Senators, I am prepared to offer an amendment to this legislation that will begin to do just that. It incorporates some of the best ideas from different pieces of legislation already introduced in the Senate, ideas that have broad bipartisan support. The amendment we are talking about would impose mandatory sanctions on transactions with the Russian defense or intelligence sectors, including the FSB and the GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency that was primarily responsible for Russia's attack on our election. The amendment would impose mandatory visa bans and asset freezes on any individual who undermines the cyber security of public or private infrastructure and democratic institutions. It would impose mandatory sanctions on those who assist or support such activities. The amendment would codify existing sanctions on Russia by placing into law five Executive orders signed by President Obama in response to both Russian interference in the 2016 election and its illegal actions in Ukraine, and it would take new steps to tighten those sanctions. For example, Russia's ability to issue new sovereign debt essentially allows Russia to borrow money from global capital markets to offset pressure from existing U.S. and European sanctions. So this amendment would impose mandatory sanctions on U.S. and third-party investment in sales of Russian sovereign debt as well as in the privatization of Russian state-owned assets. The amendment would target the Russian energy sector, which is controlled by Vladimir Putin's cronies, with sanctions on investments in Russian petroleum and natural gas development as well as Russian energy pipelines. We also need to put additional pressure on the ability of Putin and his cronies to move money they have looted from the Russian state. So this amendment would mandate that the Secretary of the Treasury establish a high-level task force within the Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network that would focus on tracing, mapping, and prosecuting illicit financial flows linked to Russia if such flows interact with the U.S. financial system. The task force would also work with liaison officers in key U.S. Embassies, especially in Europe, to work with local authorities to uncover and prosecute the networks responsible for the illicit Russian financial flows. Finally, recognizing that Russia seeks to undermine not just American democracy but Western democracy altogether, this amendment would provide support to the State Department, the Global Engagement Center, and USAID to help build the resilience of democratic institutions in Europe against Russian aggression exerted through corruption, propaganda, and other forms of political interference. We need a strong Russia sanctions amendment. We need it now. We need it on this piece of legislation. We need this amendment because we have no time to waste. The United States of America needs to send a strong message to Vladimir Putin and any other aggressor that we will not tolerate attacks on our democracy. There is no greater threat to our freedoms than attacks on our ability to choose our own leaders free from foreign interference. So we must act accordingly, and we must act now. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is with deep sadness that I come to the floor to pay tribute to my friend and great supporter, Jerry Perenchio. Along with my wife, Cindy, I offer my sincerest condolences to Margie and Jerry's three children, five grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren as they mourn the loss of a man whose brilliant talent and business success were only surpassed by his humility and generosity. Jerry's incredible life and career epitomize the American dream. The grandson of Italian immigrants, Jerry spent time at military school before graduating from UCLA and joining the U.S. Air Force as a fighter pilot. Jerry pursued his goal of working in show business by taking a job in the mailroom at a talent agency. Before long, he was promoted to talent agent and later launched his own agency, representing Hollywood stars including Marlon Brando, Andy Williams, and Ronald Reagan. He would go on to partner with Norman Lear and Bud Yorkin and produce some of the most iconic television shows in history, including ``All in the Family,'' ``Good Times'' and ``The Jeffersons,'' and financed celebrated films such as ``Driving Miss Daisy,'' which won the Oscar for best picture in 1989. Jerry also played a major role in promoting some of history's most iconic sports matchups. In 1971, Jerry agreed to promote the heavyweight world championship ``fight of the century'' between Muhammed Ali and Joe Frazier at New York's Madison Square Garden. Jerry sold the broadcast rights to the fight, which was shown on closed- circuit TV. He guaranteed a $5 million purse for the matchup, built a crowd of celebrities including Frank Sinatra and Burt Lancaster, and generated $2 million in profits. He would go on to promote the legendary ``Battle of the Sexes'' tennis match between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs at the Houston Astrodome that attracted a crowd of nearly 30,000 people, as well as an additional 30 million viewers who watched the match on TV. Jerry is perhaps best known for building Univision into the media powerhouse it is today. He bought the then-struggling network in 1992 and, in just 4 years, led Univision to an initial public offering. Under his leadership, Univision cultivated a loyal audience among Hispanic Americans who had been previously underrepresented in the mainstream media. Colleagues of Jerry at Univision have spoken of his deep respect and compassion for the Hispanic community in the United States and his visionary foresight into the important role they play in culture and politics. While Jerry had much personal success to celebrate, he carried himself with humility, generosity, and integrity. Despite working in show business, Jerry preferred a more reclusive life and encouraged his subordinates to work hard and avoid the press. ``Stay out of the spotlight,'' Jerry would say. ``It fades your suit.'' He gave to countless causes and charities, many anonymously, including the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center and Walt Disney Concert Hall. I was privileged to work closely with Jerry in 2008 when he served as national finance cochair of my Presidential campaign. I will always appreciate Jerry and Margie's generosity and support during that effort and value the strong friendship we forged in the years since. Jerry Perenchio will be missed by his family and friends, but his remarkable impact on the entertainment industry and his immense patriotism and generosity will be long remembered by his country. I am honored to have known him and to call him my friend. Thank you.

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, today I wish to recognize the military career of COL Patrick Kerr, who is retiring from Active Duty on June 1, 2017 after serving more than 26 years in the U.S. Army. Colonel Kerr was commissioned into the Army as a second lieutenant through the ROTC program at James Madison University in 1990. Over the course of his long career, Colonel Kerr served at every leadership level in the Army from platoon leader in the 63rd Signal Battalion to brigade commander of the Army Information Systems Engineering Command at Fort Huachuca. During his brigade command, Colonel Kerr's unit defended Army networks against daily attacks and conducted cyber space and network operations in support of the warfighter. Throughout his time in the Army, Colonel Kerr has been a leader in the incredibly important battlefield of cyber security and network communications. It is difficult to imagine aspects of the military that have changed more in the last quarter century than military communications, information technology, and cyber security. Colonel Kerr provided extraordinary leadership for the Army to navigate through the many challenges of building, operating, and protecting Army and Defense Department communications networks. Prior to his current assignment in Arizona, Colonel Kerr was the deputy operations officer for recently created Army Cyber Command. He also commanded the 53rd Signal Battalion, which operates the Department of Defense's constellation of military command and control satellites, providing secure and protected communications around the globe. Colonel Kerr also served as executive officer of the 44th Signal Battalion for its deployment to Afghanistan during the first parliamentary elections for the new government in 2005. As a young officer, Colonel Kerr also deployed to Somalia for Operation Continue Hope; to Kosovo as part of the NATO stabilization force operations; and to Central Command for Operation Provide Comfort. Colonel Kerr has received numerous awards, including the Legion of Merit, with oakleaf cluster, Bronze Star, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, with two oakleaf clusters, and the Meritorious Service Medal, with two oakleaf clusters). He has earned the U.S. Air Force Space Badge and is a recipient of the Signal Corps Regiment Silver Order of Mercury. Finally, Colonel Kerr provided mentorship to countless soldiers throughout his career. He is known for going the extra mile in professionally developing his subordinates and truly preparing them for their next leadership role. In fact, Colonel Kerr's advice and counsel is regularly sought by all who work with him to include his peers and superiors. Colonel Kerr is retiring in Vail, AZ, with his family. He has been married to his wife, Wendy, for over 25 years, and they have two children, Noelle and Peter. For a career soldier, the support of family is vital, and I sincerely thank Wendy, Noelle, and Peter for their sacrifice and support during their numerous deployments and moves. For a career of exceptional service to the Army and to the Nation, I congratulate COL Patrick Kerr on his retirement and I wish him and his family well in their future endeavors.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today I come to the floor in opposition to the nomination of Robert Lighthizer to be United States Trade Representative, USTR. After close examination of the confirmation process for Mr. Lighthizer, I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Lighthizer does not adequately understand the positive economic benefits the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, has had and will continue to have on Arizona and our Nation. His advocacy for protectionist shifts in America's trade policies, including his support for the withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, and the Trump administration's incoherent and inconsistent trade posture, have only solidified my opposition to his nomination to be USTR. As I wrote in a February piece in the Arizona Republic, coauthored by my colleague Senator Flake and Arizona chamber president Glenn Hammer, NAFTA has delivered enormous economic benefits to the United States since its inception in 1994, especially for the citizens of Arizona. In just two decades, Arizona's exports to Canada and Mexico have increased by $5.7 billion, or 236 percent. Mexico stands as Arizona's No. 1 trading partner, with bilateral trade accounting for 40 percent of our State's exports to foreign markets in 2015 and totaling $9.2 billion. Arizona's trade relationship with Mexico also directly supports more than 100,000 Arizona jobs. While I understand NAFTA could be strengthened and modernized, any efforts by this administration to withdraw from NAFTA or impose new restrictions or barriers on our ability to trade with Mexico and Canada will have serious consequences for Arizona, including massive job losses for workers and dramatically higher costs for consumers. Furthermore, I am troubled by the need for and the process by which Congress recently granted Mr. Lighthizer a waiver to serve as USTR given that he previously represented a Brazilian and Chinese client in trade litigation matters. As part of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, Congress adopted my amendment to prohibit an individual from serving as U.S. Trade Representative or Deputy U.S. Trade Representative if that person has ``directly represented, aided, or advised a foreign entity'' in ``any trade negotiation, or trade dispute, with the United States.'' Ultimately, the waiver was tucked in the must-pass omnibus spending bill, with no chance to debate or vote on such an important trade related policy. As Senator Sasse and I recently wrote in a letter opposing Mr. Lighthizer, the administration's incoherent and protectionist message on trade ``is especially troubling because confirming a USTR grants the Administration additional legal authority to negotiate trade deals that Congress must consider under `fast track' procedures. Given these circumstances, granting the Trump Administration additional legal powers through your confirmation without understanding how you or the Administration intend to use those powers would be irresponsible.'' I plan to vote against the nomination of Mr. Lighthizer, and I urge colleagues to join me.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. What is the time of the vote?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination of Heather Wilson to be the next Secretary of the U.S. Air Force. Dr. Wilson is a proven leader and a dedicated public servant. She is a distinguished graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and Oxford University, where she earned master's and doctorate degrees as a Rhodes Scholar. If confirmed, Dr. Wilson will be the first Air Force Academy graduate in history to serve as Secretary of the Air Force. Dr. Wilson served 7 years as an Air Force officer. During the Cold War, she served in the United Kingdom and at the U.S. Mission to NATO in Brussels. As the Cold War came to an end, she served on the National Security Council staff under President George H.W. Bush, working on issues concerning NATO and arms control. Dr. Wilson later moved west to marry her husband, Jay, who is also an Air Force veteran. After a few years in the private sector, Dr. Wilson once again answered the call to service, first as the head of the New Mexico Child Welfare Department and later as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. In Congress, Dr. Wilson was the leading voice on national security. She took on the tough issues, from surveillance programs to sexual assault at the Air Force Academy, and she earned the deepest respect of her colleagues on Capitol Hill, including mine. For the last 4 years, Dr. Wilson has been the president of the South Dakota School of Mines, enhancing its reputation as a premier engineering, science, and research institution. Now America's Air Force needs her leadership. The next Secretary will lead America's Air Force in confronting the most diverse and complex array of global crises since the end of World War II. The world is on fire, and now more than ever our Nation is counting on the global vigilance, global reach, and global power that are the hallmarks of the U.S. Air Force capabilities. The next Secretary will also inherit the oldest, smallest, and least ready Air Force in its history. Twenty-five years of continuous deployments, troubled acquisition programs, and frequent aircraft divestments have aged and shrunk the Air Force's inventory. The combination of relentless operational tempo and the self-inflicted wounds of the Budget Control Act and sequestration have depleted readiness. Meanwhile, potential adversaries are rapidly shrinking America's technological advantage and holding our aircraft at greater risk over greater distances. In short, we have asked a lot of our Air Force over the last 25 years, and the demands placed on the service continue to grow. Congress has only added to the problems with the Budget Control Act and sequestration. We are placing an unnecessary and dangerous burden on the backs of our airmen, and we cannot change course soon enough. We owe our airmen the resources, equipment, and training they need to succeed. We also owe them proven leadership. That is why the Senate should confirm Dr. Wilson to be the next Secretary of the Air Force. From the Air Force Academy to the Air Force, to the National Security Council, to the House of Representatives, Dr. Wilson has proven herself as a leader. She understands the missions of the Air Force and the capabilities it brings to the defense of our Nation. I am confident she will uphold the Air Force's core values: integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all the Air Force does. Heather Wilson is the right person to lead the Air Force to a stronger future, and I urge my colleagues to support her nomination. Mr. President, I yield back all time.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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