John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask again? So these children now, ones because of the numbers in overwhelming our facilities, are in terrible conditions for someone, a human being in the United States of America: no facilities, no bathing, diet, overcrowding, being put on transportation and taken to Arizona and dropped off at bus stops, and yet not only is that a terrific problem, at least once they are there, they are not prey to some of the things they are prey to on the 1,200-mile trip which are horrible in many circumstances given the nature of these people who are the drug smugglers and human smugglers at the same time. So is it true that the dimensions of this humanitarian tragedy/crisis are something that deserve the attention of all of us? I am surprised it has not gotten a lot more attention than it has up to now.

Mr. McCAIN. I would ask one more question. Does the Senator know of any plan or any idea of what our Department of Homeland Security and our Border Patrol and people have to deal with this? Do you have any idea what they have to address this issue besides transporting children from Texas to Tucson, AZ, and dropping them off at a bus stop?

Mr. McCAIN. In other words, by making the decision the President of the United States made on deferred action, if you believe those numbers and they are accurate, that triggered a mass movement into the United States of America. So it is not an accident that these numbers have gone from 13,000 up to 60,000 or 90,000, depending on who you talk to. It is not an accident. So if it is a matter of policy, then that policy needs to be reviewed. Rather than cure the symptom, which we have to do because it is a humanitarian crisis, the humanitarian crisis is not going to be over until we address the root of the problem. Is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. I would like to say to the Senator from Vermont that I respect a great deal the work he has done on this legislation. I respect his commitment and his leadership of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I respect the fact that Bernie Sanders is known as a fighter, and it has been a pleasure to do combat with him. But I also would like to say that at the end of the day with strongly held views on different aspects of this issue, we were able to come together in a way that will help to relieve this terrible tragedy that seems to have befallen our Nation's veterans. It started in Phoenix, AZ, as my colleagues know, but it has spread all over the country. It begins with the terrible story of perhaps 40 veterans having literally died for lack of care. I do not need to go through all of the different problems that have surfaced in the ensuing days since that began, but there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that we should accept the word of the inspector general who said these are systemic problems. This is not a scheduling problem. These are systemic problems that need to be addressed. Our hope--as we concluded this legislation--was that perhaps we could put some of our other differences aside that have beset this body and move forward and address this legislation as quickly as possible and begin to repair the damage because we have, for all intents and purposes, in some ways betrayed the brave men and women who were willing to go out and sacrifice for the well-being and freedom of the rest of us. So, again, I say to Senator Sanders, I appreciate his leadership and I appreciate the fact that we both had to make some very tough compromises, but I have found in my experience that when tough compromises are made, usually that is a sign of bipartisanship and a sign that it is a good piece of legislation. I know that is not the popular thing to say nowadays in today's political environment, but I do not believe, if compromises had not been made, that we would be bringing to the floor of the Senate--and working with the House's chairman Jeff Miller over there--that we would be doing what we are introducing today. I would also like to say a word about two other individuals; that is, Senator Burr, the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, whom I admire enormously--he has worked tirelessly on behalf of the veterans and he is a most respected member of our conference--and of course our most unique treasure, Dr. Tom Coburn, who had been my nominee to take over the Veterans' Administration, which almost destroyed a long and beautiful friendship, but Dr. Coburn is the conscience of our conference. He is the person whom we look up to and admire the most for his integrity, for his honesty, his intelligence. I thank both Senator Burr and Dr. Coburn for their enormous work. In some ways, I am sort of the spokesperson, when they did a great majority of the work. As Senator Sanders pointed out, I would like to just cover several aspects of this legislation and try to explain a little bit why some of these provisions are there. Of course, a top priority for me for many years has been to give the veteran a choice. We ought to give the veteran a choice--the same choice as people who are Medicare recipients, those who have TRICARE; that is, the military health care program--where if they are outside of 40 miles from the nearest VA facility, if there is a wait time which is unacceptable, then they should be able to go to the health care provider right near their home, not have to get in a van and ride for 2 or 3 hours for routine medical care. I also want to emphasize what I hope my colleagues understand, that this is in no way a comment on the Veterans' Administration--I will leave that to others and other judgments--because there are things done in the veterans health care system that only the veterans health care system can handle: PTSD, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, prosthesis, war wounds, that only the VA can do. None of this that we are saying in any way denigrates or does anything that is uncomplimentary to the outstanding men and women who work in this system. We are proud of their work. It is the system that needs to be fixed. So I do not want anybody who is associated with the Veterans' Administration to believe we are criticizing them. We are talking about a system that must be fixed. It is urgent that it be fixed. Every single day that goes by a veteran is deprived of the care he or she has earned serving this country is wrong. That is why I urge my colleagues: If you have amendments, if you think you can make this bill better, we welcome it. We would be glad to discuss with you amendments to this legislation. We would be glad, if you know how to make it better. But in the meantime, can we sort of pledge that we are committed to seeing this thing all the way through? I would urge my colleagues to do that. Again, I know I speak for Senator Sanders when I say: If you have a way to make this bill, this legislation, better, come on in. But let's not get hung up on certain other aspects of our differences that have characterized what most people would view as gridlock in this body. I urge my colleagues to look at this compromise. It is a compromise. If you think you can make it better, we welcome your input. But also, we would like to have your commitment to seeing this through to the President's desk. I know that over on the other side of the Capitol they are working hard on this issue too. So we bring up, as I mentioned, veterans should have that card. That veteran should be able to go to a facility of his or her choice. Accountability. Senator Rubio and others, Congressman Miller and others, have introduced legislation. Senator Sanders has improved on it. This calls for the immediate firing--an immediate firing if there is evidence of work that is not in keeping with the standards we expect of our employees. During that period, under appeal, that person will not receive a salary. That person will have some due process: 7 days to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board and there are 21 days for that Merit Systems Protection Board to render a final decision. Yes, we should have, as many of our colleagues want, accountability. But that accountability also in this proposal allows for due process for someone to at least have their case heard. There is expedited hiring authority for VA doctors and nurses, and additional authority to hire new providers. There are unobligated funds out there. We are going to use unobligated funds to hire more doctors and nurses where they are needed. But I would also point out, in some cases doctors and nurses have to work harder where they are. Also, there are now pending, over the years, administration requests for 26 major facility leases to be entered into. This has been the President's request. This has been a bipartisan agreement on the need for these facilities. I believe we should proceed with it. I would also point out to my colleagues, this legislation has some expenses. But the major expense is to move forward with the construction of these major medical facilities all over America. In the view of all, it is necessary. This improves the access to health care for individuals who are the victims of military sexual assault. Sexual assault is probably one of the most vexing issues we face in the military today outside of combat. We do not know exactly what causes some of this. We do know many times it is because of a lack of discipline. But there is no doubt this is a problem in the military that needs to be addressed; otherwise, mothers and fathers will be not agreeable--in fact reluctant--to have their sons and daughters serve in the military unless we address this issue of sexual assault. There are many efforts going on, in the Defense authorization bill, in the military, many other areas where we are working on this issue. But I think this provision in the bill will be very helpful in attempting to address that issue. A commission needs to be appointed on scheduling and care. We know one of the problems is scheduling, and this whole issue of phantom lists and waiting lists that disappeared. We have to get to the bottom of it. I think the smartest people in America could help us on that. There is another commission on capital planning. What are the needs of our veterans? One of the things we do know is we have an aging veteran population from World War II, those who are, God bless them, still with us, Korea and Vietnam. That is an aging veterans population and requires a different kind of care than those of Iraq and Afghanistan. To be frank, a lot of that is geriatric care. To be frank, geriatric care is very expensive. But we have to understand who this population is and what their needs are, just as we have to understand the Iraqi and Afghanistan war veterans and what their needs are. Very frankly, our planning so far has not been very impressive to me. We need to have--this is a pure Senator Sanders initiative--a GI bill tuition, eligibility for surviving spouses of those who died in the line of duty. It seems to me that is only fair. And a provision also that in-State tuition will be provided for all veterans at public colleges and universities. Again, finally I want to say thank you to Senator Sanders. I also want to say to my colleagues again: This is not a perfect document. We are ready to see any changes that we would consider, and perhaps germane amendments. But I would also hope we could focus our attention on the bill and the efforts to help our veterans, as opposed to other issues which seem to be with us on a daily basis. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it has been almost 2 months since allegations that some 40 veterans died while waiting for care at the Phoenix VA were first made public. Since that report, we have learned of similar allegations of gross mismanagement and data manipulation at 42 VA medical facilities across the U.S. More troubling, according to the Office of the Inspector General's preliminary report, 1,700 veterans in the Phoenix VA Health Care System who thought they were about to receive care were never even placed on the VA's Electronic Waiting List and are ``at risk of being forgotten or lost in Phoenix HCS's convoluted scheduling process''. Today, it is clear that delaying medical care and manipulating records to hide those delays in care is systemic through the Department of Veterans' Affairs health system. This has created in our veterans' community a crisis of confidence toward the VA--the very agency that was established to care for them. Today, I joined Senators Coburn, Burr, and Flake to introduce the Veterans Choice Act of 2014. This bill would, principally, empower veterans with greater flexibility when choosing their medical care and increase transparency and accountability within the VA to ensure that it delivers quality care to our veterans in a timely manner. Specifically, it would give veterans the option to go to a different doctor if the VA can't schedule an appointment within a reasonable time or if the veteran lives too far away from a VA medical facility. Additionally, this bill would prohibit scheduling or wait-time metrics/ goals from being used as factors to determining performance awards or bonuses. It would also require the Secretary of the VA to punish employees who falsify data, including civil penalties, suspension or termination. And, empower the Secretary of the VA to remove any top executive at the VA if the Secretary determines that his performance warrants removal. Put simply, unlike some other proposals that have been made to reform how the VA delivers care, this bill would squarely address the root causes of the tragic circumstances that have brought us to this point. For almost all this century, Americans have been fighting in faraway places to make this dangerous world safer for the rest of us. They have been brave. They have sacrificed and suffered. They bear wounds and mourn losses they will never completely recover from--and we can never fully compensate them for. But, we can care for the injuries they incurred on our behalf and provide for their physical and emotional recovery from the battles they fought to protect us. Quality care for our veterans is among the most solemn obligations a nation must pay, and we will be judged by God and history by how well we discharge ours. Indeed, we must be worthy of the sacrifices made on our behalf How we care for those who risked everything for us is the most important test of a Nation's character. Today, we are failing that test. We must do better tomorrow. Much better. For the 9 million American veterans who depend on the VA for their health care, and for the families whose tragic stories we have heard over the last two months, who I know are still grieving their losses, it is time to provide our veterans with the care, choice, and accountability that they so rightly deserve. I am pleased to be associated with the bill Senator Burr, Senator Coburn and Senator Flake introduced today, which would help the nation achieve those laudable, necessary goals. I urge my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--to support it.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it has been almost 2 months since allegations that some 40 veterans died while waiting for care at the Phoenix VA were first made public. Since that report, we have learned of similar allegations of gross mismanagement and data manipulation at 42 VA medical facilities across the U.S. More troubling, according to the Office of the Inspector General's preliminary report, 1,700 veterans in the Phoenix VA Health Care System who thought they were about to receive care were never even placed on the VA's Electronic Waiting List and are ``at risk of being forgotten or lost in Phoenix HCS's convoluted scheduling process''. Today, it is clear that delaying medical care and manipulating records to hide those delays in care is systemic through the Department of Veterans' Affairs health system. This has created in our veterans' community a crisis of confidence toward the VA--the very agency that was established to care for them. Today, I joined Senators Coburn, Burr, and Flake to introduce the Veterans Choice Act of 2014. This bill would, principally, empower veterans with greater flexibility when choosing their medical care and increase transparency and accountability within the VA to ensure that it delivers quality care to our veterans in a timely manner. Specifically, it would give veterans the option to go to a different doctor if the VA can't schedule an appointment within a reasonable time or if the veteran lives too far away from a VA medical facility. Additionally, this bill would prohibit scheduling or wait-time metrics/ goals from being used as factors to determining performance awards or bonuses. It would also require the Secretary of the VA to punish employees who falsify data, including civil penalties, suspension or termination. And, empower the Secretary of the VA to remove any top executive at the VA if the Secretary determines that his performance warrants removal. Put simply, unlike some other proposals that have been made to reform how the VA delivers care, this bill would squarely address the root causes of the tragic circumstances that have brought us to this point. For almost all this century, Americans have been fighting in faraway places to make this dangerous world safer for the rest of us. They have been brave. They have sacrificed and suffered. They bear wounds and mourn losses they will never completely recover from--and we can never fully compensate them for. But, we can care for the injuries they incurred on our behalf and provide for their physical and emotional recovery from the battles they fought to protect us. Quality care for our veterans is among the most solemn obligations a nation must pay, and we will be judged by God and history by how well we discharge ours. Indeed, we must be worthy of the sacrifices made on our behalf How we care for those who risked everything for us is the most important test of a Nation's character. Today, we are failing that test. We must do better tomorrow. Much better. For the 9 million American veterans who depend on the VA for their health care, and for the families whose tragic stories we have heard over the last two months, who I know are still grieving their losses, it is time to provide our veterans with the care, choice, and accountability that they so rightly deserve. I am pleased to be associated with the bill Senator Burr, Senator Coburn and Senator Flake introduced today, which would help the nation achieve those laudable, necessary goals. I urge my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--to support it.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider the nomination of Keith Harper as the U.S. Representative to the U.N. Human Rights Council. I am generally deferential to the President's decisions when it comes to nominations brought before the Senate for confirmation, but in extraordinary circumstances I don't hesitate to oppose them. Given the extraordinary circumstances present in this case, I must strenuously object to this nominee. Mr. Harper is the latest State Department ``bundler-blunder'' that is slated for a U.S. ambassadorship. Earlier this year we saw the administration nominate several wholly unqualified top Democratic fundraisers to serve as ambassadors to various posts around the world. One such fundraiser, Mr. George Tsunis, was nominated to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Norway. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Tsunis revealed his complete unawareness about the country in which he would serve as our Nation's top envoy. For example, he referred to Norway's head of State as their President, not knowing that the country is led by a constitutional monarch. Another Presidential pick, Colleen Bell, for Hungary could not answer a single question at her Senate hearing about U.S. strategic interests in that country, but that is OK. I am certain her professional background as a TV soap opera producer will come in handy while the crisis in Ukraine continues to unfold. Inside the beltway, these nominees are known as ``campaign bundlers,'' partisan political operatives who have each fundraised hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of dollars for the President's campaign. Mr. Harper is another example of a campaign bundler wholly ill-suited to serve in the diplomatic post for which he has been nominated. According to the Center of Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign donations, Mr. Harper is on a list called ``758 Elites.'' These are donors who combined ``at least $180 million for Obama's re-election effort.'' That is a quote from the Center of Responsive Politics. Mr. Harper is classified as a bundler of $500,000 or more, and his contribution level matched such notables as actor Will Smith, actress Eva Longoria, and Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. I am not naive as to why some of these ambassadorships are doled out. Candidly speaking, Presidents from both parties frequently issue these diplomatic posts as political favors. But I have never before seen an administration this brazen in transmitting individuals who are so terribly and fundamentally unfit for foreign service. Traditionally, according to the retired Foreign Service group, about 30 percent of ambassadorships go to political appointees. Since the election of 2012, that is up to 50 percent. Some go to countries that, frankly, deserve better than someone whose only qualification is whether they raised $500,000 or more for the campaign of President Obama. Some of my colleagues will say that what sets Mr. Harper apart from these other campaign donors is his cultural heritage. They say Mr. Harper would be the first Native American in history to hold the rank of U.S. Ambassador. They also say he should be rewarded for his work as one of the lead class action attorneys in the Supreme Court case Cobell v. Salazar. I truly respect that Mr. Harper would be the first Native American to serve as a U.S. Ambassador. What concerns me is his character-- particularly his conduct in connection with a matter that could rightly be described as one of the greatest mistreatments of Native Americans by the Federal Government in recent memory. That matter is known as the Cobell case. In the 1990s hundreds of thousands of Native Americans, led by Elouise Cobell, entered into a class action suit against the Interior Department for mismanaging billions of dollars in land assets that were held in trust for Indian tribes. During my previous tenure as chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I worked with my colleague, then-vice chairman Byron Dorgan, to end the protracted Cobell lawsuit and enact legislation to settle the case in Congress. Ultimately, it wasn't until 2010 that Congress finally passed legislation that compensated the Cobell plaintiffs at $3.4 billion. My colleagues know that Mr. Harper was the co-lead counsel for the Cobell plaintiffs and often touted the number of his clients at about 500,000 Native Americans. When the lawsuit was settled, Mr. Harper and his legal team stood to earn up to $99 million in attorney's fees that were written into the Cobell settlement legislation and paid for by the American taxpayer. Let me emphasize: For this good work, Mr. Cobell and his legal team were going to earn $99 million in attorney's fees. Without a doubt, the legislation was a massive bonus check for Mr. Harper and his team, and he and his team have actually sued the Federal Government to receive another $123 million--more than the $99 million he already got. Most of the Native American clients will receive about $1,000 each, and many are still waiting to receive their first payment to date. Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues conveniently ignore that Mr. Harper served on President Obama's 2009 transition team for Native American issues while he actively sued the Interior Department. Does it concern my colleagues that several months after the President installed his leadership team at Interior and Justice, the administration essentially fast-tracked the settlement with the Cobell attorneys or that just 1 year later Congress enacted the $3.4 billion Cobell settlement legislation as a top White House priority, ending an over decade-long legal battle? Evidently not. Now the administration claims there was no wrongdoing or conflict of interest on the part of Mr. Harper in his service to the President's transition team, and I have no choice but to take their word for it, albeit skeptical. But we do know of at least one appalling and unforgivable incident that has dogged Mr. Harper throughout the Senate's consideration of his nomination--and rightfully so. When the Cobell lawsuit was settled and Mr. Harper's legal team stood to earn tens of millions of dollars, a number of Native American plaintiffs--Mr. Harper's own clients--raised grave concerns that their attorneys would receive such a sizable payout. They argued that more of the Cobell settlement should go to the thousands of Native Americans who had been wronged by Interior. Four affected Native Americans banded together and filed a lawsuit to challenge the Cobell settlement for this and other reasons. One appellate told the court that ``huge fees awarded to class counsel often indicate the interests of the absent class members have been sacrificed to those of the lawyers.'' As a result of this legal challenge, the court temporarily delayed the Cobell payouts to the plaintiffs and, of course, to Mr. Harper. In what can only be described as bullying, the Cobell legal team fired back at these four Native Americans. They transmitted a letter dated January 20, 2012, to all of their 500,000 clients that listed the home addresses and telephone numbers of the four appellants and urged all of Indian Country to call and harass them for challenging the Cobell settlement. The letter reads: Your payments are being held-up by 4 people . . . [each] believes that you are not entitled to the relief (nor the payment of your trust funds) . . . This means you will receive nothing from the settlement: no payment, no scholarship funds, no land consolidation, and no further trust reform . . . Here is the best part. In the letter that was sent to 500,000 people, it said: [If] you want to ask them directly about their motives, you should contact them at the following address or phone numbers. I hope my colleagues understand what was done there. These four Native Americans received harassing calls, death threats, had their jobs threatened. One had to disconnect their phone. Another was essentially run off her reservation. I will submit two articles for printing in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The first is an article from the Missoulian entitled ``Objectors to $3.4B Indian trust settlement get angry phone calls,'' which further describes how this letter affected their personal lives. The second is an article from the Native American Times entitled ``Cobell Class Members question settlement, attorney conduct.'' The harassment letter was accessible on the Cobell team's Web site during the Harper committee hearing. It was on his Web site during the hearing in the committee, but it was promptly removed the day after I questioned Mr. Harper about it. I will also submit for printing in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my remarks the previously referenced letter provided that the contact information of those four individuals be redacted. At his committee hearing, Mr. Harper adamantly denied any responsibility for the letter and blamed the strategy entirely on another Cobell attorney. However, Mr. Harper has since muddied his story and later admitted he was aware of the letter on the very day it was transmitted. If he didn't pen the harassment letter or approve it, as he dubiously claims, he certainly did nothing to retract it or denounce it until his Senate hearing. There is also no disputing that Mr. Harper has held himself out and is overly proud of his status as one of the lead counsels on the Cobell case. I would argue that those four Native Americans' human rights were abused. People such as Mr. Harper can't be a party to or complicit with a letter attempting to harass Native Americans for exercising their rights and then expect to obtain the Senate's imprimatur to serve as our Nation's ambassador on human rights. That is the irony of all of this. He clearly abused these people's human rights, and now he is going to be an ambassador on human rights? Mr. Harper has not sufficiently answered my questions about his involvement with the harassment letter or how much in legal fees he has profiteered from Cobell over the years. I will also submit for the Record his written responses to my hearing questions which conflict with his verbal testimony about the harassment letter and other matters. I can't in good conscience support Mr. Harper's nomination. The global community faces serious human rights crises, and this is whom the administration sends to speak on behalf of all Americans, including Native Americans? I urge my colleagues to vote against Mr. Harper, and I call upon the administration to transmit a nominee who has an unblemished record of protecting human and civil rights--a record of accomplishment and integrity commensurate with this very important post. Here is the situation. Mr. Harper will probably be confirmed today on a partisan vote--on a party-line vote. He won't get 60 votes. He will probably get 55 or maybe 1 or 2 less. This is another example of a deprivation that is taking place of my right to advise and consent and that of every single Member of the minority. This nomination would not have come to this floor if we still required 60 votes. But, instead, my colleagues across the aisle have decided to deprive Members on this side of their right of advice and consent because he will be confirmed, probably, today on a party-line basis despite the fact of a clear record of abuse of human rights by a majority here in the Senate. I tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: If we gain the majority in this Senate as a result of this November's election, I will do everything in my power to restore their rights as a minority--their rights of advice and consent. The fact that it was taken away from us for the first time in the history of the Senate is a despicable and black act that will live in history. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. The Middle East today is engulfed in an escalating regional conflict. The space for moderate politics in country after country is collapsing, and a process of radicalization is increasingly destabilizing the entire region. At the center of this growing conflict stands Syria, where for over 3 years now the Syrian people have faced an onslaught of unspeakable violence from President Bashar al-Assad and his forces. As of today more than 160,000 Syrians have been killed, over half of the population is in urgent need of humanitarian assistance, and 9.3 million people have been driven from their homes in what the United Nations has described ``as the greatest humanitarian tragedy of our times.'' To give some sense for the scale of the growing refugee crisis, there are now 1 million registered Syrian refugees in Lebanon. That makes up one-fourth of the total population of the country. This does not include the thousands who are living there unofficially and unregistered. This is as if the entire population of Canada were uprooted and became refugees in the United States of America--twice over. Without understanding the scale, it is hard to comprehend the stress on resources and the escalating tensions that these refugees have caused in neighboring countries. Can you imagine what we would do as Americans if we were dealing with the entire population of Canada living as refugees in our country? Inside Syria, they are confronted with the inhumane cruelty of Mr. Assad and his forces every day. We have seen evidence of this systematic abuse, torture, starvation, and killing of approximately 100,000 detainees, in what clearly amounts to war crimes and crimes against humanity. The United Nations has detailed the further arrest, detention, torture, and sexual abuse of thousands of children by government forces. Human Rights Watch has documented how Syrian authorities have deliberately used explosives and bulldozers to demolish entire neighborhoods for no military reason whatsoever, just as a form of collective punishment of Syrian civilians. The United Nations has also documented the toll of the Syrian government's air strike campaign, and, in particular, the regime's use of crude cluster munitions that have become known as barrel bombs. Their sole purpose is to maim, kill, and terrorize as many civilians as possible when indiscriminately dropped on schools, bakeries, and mosques. Worse yet, evidence is piling up that Assad's forces have been equipping these barrel bombs with chlorine gas. Just last week French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said that France has evidence of at least 14 chlorine-based chemical attacks carried out by Syrian Government forces since 2013, adding, ``The regime is still capable of producing chemical weapons and is determined to use them.'' Around the same time, a senior Israeli defense official stated that ``from the day that he signed the deal, Assad has used chemical weapons over thirty times, and in every case citizens were killed.'' The State Department has further verified these reports, stating there were ``indications'' of the use of chlorine--though it was quick to point out that this is not one of the chemicals Syria was obliged to surrender. So it appears that we are faced with a situation in which the Assad regime has agreed to give up certain chemical weapons after using them to murder nearly 1,400 civilians last year, but it is also using other chemicals--less lethal but nonetheless effective--to continue gassing civilians to death, and the world does nothing about it. Why? Because technically this is permitted under the chemical weapons agreement. That is shameful and outrageous. What is more, months after the deadline for removing all of its chemical weapons stockpiles, the Syrian Government has yet to fulfill its obligations under the treaty and is using its remaining stockpiles to bargain over the terms of the original agreement in the hopes of retaining its storage and production facilities. As we are once again faced with images of men, women, and children writhing on the ground and gasping for breath, Assad appears to be disregarding some of his chemical weapons commitments and continuing to commit mass atrocities. Again, redlines are tested and crossed, and the United States of America and the world do nothing. These are just some of the many reasons our Director of National Intelligence referred to the Syria crisis as ``an apocalyptic disaster.'' But this apocalyptic disaster in Syria is no longer just a humanitarian tragedy for one country; it is a regional conflict and an emerging national security threat to us all. No one should believe that we will be immune to what is happening in Syria. None of us are. For those of you who look at these far-away events and say what Neville Chamberlain once told himself about a different problem from Hell in an earlier time--that this is ``a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing''--don't think that events in Syria won't have repercussions much closer to home. The terrorist sanctuary that Al Qaeda and its associated forces now enjoy in Syria and Iraq increasingly pose a direct threat to U.S. national security and that of our closest allies and partners. Indeed, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Mr. Jeh Johnson, has said, ``Syria is now a matter of homeland security.'' The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, has also repeatedly warned that Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists in Syria now aspire to attack the homeland. If the September 11 attacks 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, and that is what top officials in this administration are now warning us Syria is becoming today. The latest U.S. intelligence estimates say that more than 100 Americans have traveled to fight in Syria alongside extremists, joining some of the most dangerous terrorist organizations in the world today. Earlier this month, FBI Director James Comey stated: All of us with a memory of the '80s and '90s saw the line drawn from Afghanistan to September 11. We see Syria as that, but an order of magnitude worse in a couple of respects: Far more people are going there, and far easier to travel to and back from. Already, senior intelligence officials believe that between 6 and 12 Americans who have gone to Syria to fight have now returned to America, possibly with the intention to carry out attacks here. ``We know where some are,'' stated one senior U.S. intelligence official. Some? But what about the others? Does that reassure you? The sheer scale of foreign fighters with Western passports traveling to fight in Syria has our senior-most intelligence officers worrying about how easy it would be for these people to slip through the cracks. In March the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matthew Olsen, testified that the NSA simply does not have the ability to track the thousands of jihadists now flocking to Syria. He testified: This raises our concern that radicalized individuals with extremist contacts and battlefield experience could return to their home countries to commit violence on their own initiative or participate in al Qaeda-directed plots aimed at Western targets outside of Syria. First indoctrinated, then trained and equipped, the foreign fighters now joining groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, known as ISIS--a group who proved too radical even for Al Qaeda's senior leadership--presents a challenge that rises above a mere counterterrorism problem. ISIS no longer exists in small, concentrated cells, conducting operations limited in nature and scope. It has become a real nascent state actor, similar in organization and power to the Taliban of the late 1990s and possessing a real army of foreign recruits capable of carrying out attacks across the world. The territory it possesses is no longer a safe haven within a state. It has become a de facto state that serves as a safe haven and an even more vibrant incubator for international terrorism than did pre-9/11 Afghanistan. It is a saddening irony that as our efforts to eradicate the Al Qaeda safe haven in Afghanistan are proving successful, we see an even more dangerous terrorist sanctuary emerging on the border of Europe between Damascus and Baghdad. My friends, here is the tragic reality of the war in Syria. After more than 3 years of horror, suffering, devastation, and growing threats to international security, the conflict in Syria continues to get worse and worse both for Syria and for the world. But the United States and the international community have no effective policy to help bring this conflict to a responsible end. The Geneva peace talks have failed entirely, as predicted. Ambassador Brahimi, the U.N. Special Representative, has himself given up on the process and resigned last week. This should surprise no one. The United States and the international community have been reluctant to provide the opposition with much needed material support. Meanwhile, Assad has the active support of Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia and is using nearly every weapon in his arsenal to kill his way to victory, and he is winning. So why would he want to negotiate himself out of power now? Can we finally stop hiding behind the fantasy of Geneva and admit what has been painfully obvious from the start: that there is no hope for a negotiated solution until the momentum on the battlefield changes against the Assad regime. And that will only happen through greater international intervention of some sort. After painful and costly experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, a war- weary American public does not appear eager for an active, internationalist foreign policy, and President Obama has sought to give the American people what they want. While it is understandable and unsurprising that the American public has been reluctant to get more engaged with events in Syria and the wider Middle East, the tide of war does not recede simply because we wish it so. 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 international instability, the use of Syria as a training ground for Al Qaeda affiliates and other terrorist organizations, the ceding of regional leadership to our international adversaries, and the tolerance of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In short, all of the awful things that critics said would happen if we got more involved in Syria have happened because we have not gotten more involved. We continue to hear from the administration that there are no good options in Syria--as if there ever were good options in the real world--and that the only alternative to our current disengagement is a full-scale ground invasion and war without end. The President frequently has said as much, recently stating: It is very difficult to imagine a scenario in which our involvement in Syria would have led to a better outcome, short of us being willing to undertake an effort in size and scope similar to what we did in Iraq. But this claim has been directly contradicted by other administration officials who recognize that our inaction in Syria is not because we lack options or capability but, rather, the will. In an April 30 speech at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, our own Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, said: To those who would argue that a head of state or government has to choose only between doing nothing and sending in the military--I maintain that is a constructed and false choice, an accompaniment only to disengagement and passivity. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has also highlighted this false choice, recently expressing his regrets that Western nations did not carry out threatened airstrikes against the regime following the August 2013 chemical attack and that more had not been done to stop the abominable behavior of the Assad regime. He stated: We regret it [not carrying out threatened airstrikes] because we think it would have changed everything. That is a French Foreign Minister who regrets that we didn't carry out the airstrikes because ``we think it would have changed everything.'' In his comments he made it clear that a limited surgical strike would have made all the difference in Syria and would have stopped the chemical attacks that continue today, saved the lives of thousands of people, and prevented the devastating consequences that have reverberated around the world since that red line was crossed. It is true our options to help end the conflict in Syria were never good, and they are much worse and fewer now. But as Mr. Fabius pointed out, as bad as our options in Syria may be, we still have options. No one should believe that doing something meaningful to help in Syria requires total war or invasion. Literally no one is calling for that, and it is intellectually dishonest to suggest so. This is not a question of options or costs or capabilities but a question of will. The continued violence in Syria is expected to kill tens of thousands more and produce millions of refugees by the year's end. This is a humanitarian tragedy, to be sure, but one with immediate strategic consequences. The longer the devastation goes on, the more difficult it will be to put Syria back together again. Failing to do so will leave a dangerous conflagration in the heart of the Middle East--a failed state at war with itself where extremism and instability will fester and terrorists of all brands will find ample space, resources, and recruits to menace the region and eventually attack the United States. If ever there was a case that should remind us that our interests are indivisible from our values, it is Syria. 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. In the time I have been speaking, at least two Syrians have been killed, 45 Syrians have become refugees, and 15 Syrian families have been forced from their homes. In another 15 minutes from now, two more will be killed, 45 more will become refugees, and 15 more families will be forced from their homes. Is that acceptable to us? Neither the United States, Europe, nor the Syrian people can afford the cost of defeatism. The price of abandonment includes not only a failed state in Syria but an entire region teetering on the brink of disaster, and it means emboldening our adversaries and conceding a safe haven and a state to the world's most dangerous terrorist groups. While these are the real, tangible consequences we face, it also means conceding the moral sources of our great power and giving up on every principle our Nation was built on. All of us, Americans and Europeans, must recognize that our power confers a responsibility on us. If the most powerful nations in the world have the capabilities and the options to help bring to an end one of the most horrific mass atrocities in modern times, what does it say about us that we have not done so? History will render a bitter and scathing judgment on America and the world for our failure in Syria, and I pray we will finally recognize that and take the necessary actions to help the Syrian people write a better end to this sad chapter of world affairs. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two articles, one entitled ``FBI Director: Number of Americans traveling to fight in Syria increasing,'' and the other entitled ``Exclusive: Al Qaeda's American Fighters Are Coming Home--and U.S. Intelligence Can't Find Them.''

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today the Senate is considering the conference agreement for the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, WRRDA. This bill contains roughly $12.3 billion in additional authorized spending for a variety of water projects that fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works division. This bill supports the construction and maintenance of many of our Nation's dams, levees, harbors, ports, and river ways to name a few. For being such an important bill, the American people may wonder why the last time Congress passed a WRDA law was 7 years ago in 2007. The reason is that it took Congress 7 straight years to finally respond to public pressure demanding Army Corps reform. As my colleagues know, the Corps has long been criticized by government auditors, taxpayer watchdogs and environmental groups for employing highly questionable economic models and environmental studies to justify its construction projects. A large number of Army Corps projects have been pegged as government boondoggles flush with waste, fraud, and abuse due to cost-overruns and cut-corner construction. Perhaps the best known example is the flooding of New Orleans during the Hurricane Katrina disaster that was traced back to substandard Corps levees, poor planning, and gutted coastal wetlands. Years later an independent study by the American Society of Engineers commissioned by the Corps concluded that, ``a large portion of the destruction from Hurricane Katrina was caused by . . . engineering and engineering- policy failures made over many years at almost all levels of responsibility.'' But as much as the Corps' bad management practices are to blame, the truth is that we in Congress are not without fault. For decades, Congress has used each WRDA bill to pile on construction project on top of construction project as a way for members to ``bring home the bacon'' in their States. Layers of these pork projects have created a $60 billion construction backlog, and the Army Corps simply can not complete them all with their $2 billion annual construction appropriation. Cutting corners and cooking their books is simply one way they bend to political priorities set by Congress. I appreciate that the conference agreement implements some modest Corps reforms, particularly addressing the agency's $60 billion construction backlog. This bill requires the the Army Corps to ``de- authorize'' up to $18 billion in Corps projects, most of which have never received construction funding to begin with. This is a step in the right direction, but unfortunately this bill's ``savings'' are washed away by the $12 billion in new authorized spending included in this bill. Additionally, the conference agreement makes it impossible to de-authorize $28 billion in projects that were authorized in the 2007 WRDA law--a bill that was vetoed by President Bush for containing too much government waste but was subsequently overridden by Congress. This bill also falls short by not giving the Army Corps clear parameters on what projects should be treated as national priorities. The conferees even eliminated a law that requires the Corps to send their most costly and controversial projects to undergo an ``Independent Peer Review'' process. All of this means there will be less transparency and oversight into the Corps decision making process. So I am sorry to say I must question the veracity of ``reform'' in this conference agreement. I worry that ultimately this WRRDA conference agreement means that Army Corps projects of lower-priority will continue to supersede projects that address serious, life-threatening issues across the Nation and in my home State of Arizona. This lack of prioritization with Corps projects comes at a real cost to the American taxpayer. Take for example the Rio de Flag Flood Control Project in Flagstaff, AZ. The Army Corps knows that a single large flood event along the Rio de Flag River could easily wipe out the city's downtown area and Northern Arizona University, affecting half their population and causing $93 million in economic damage. After undergoing the appropriate feasibility studies, Congress authorized $24 million in 2000 to construct a 1.6-mile flood water channel and a detention basin to redirect the water away from the community. For 14 years, this project--- again, just 1.6 miles--has languished partially because of the Corps' $60 billion construction backlog. The Corps spends less than $3 million a year on Rio de Flag while Congress plays favorites with other projects on their plate. This approach of funding Army Corps projects piecemeal over the years has inflated the total estimated cost of Rio de Flag from $24 million to $101.5 million. Rio de Flag is a serious public safety project and yet it is behind schedule and way over budget. In fact, the only completed portion of the project is a 4,000-foot levee, which is cracked due to shoddy construction by an Army Corps contractor. I am told that the Army Corps recently ordered the contractor to repair the broken levee, of course at the added expense of the American taxpayer and the City of Flagstaff. Now the project faces more delays because the Army Corps has been slowly dragging out its ``updated economic analysis'' for Rio De Flag for the past 3 years, leaving the city unnecessarily vulnerable to disaster and causing the project's price tag to rise even higher. I have a longstanding practice of abstaining from legislating projects to WRDA bills out of principle that each project should be prioritized based on national need, but it's hard to argue that Flagstaff isn't one of these national priorities, or that the current practice of piling on Army Corps projects isn't contributing to the mismanagement across the entire agency. Ultimately, this conference agreement does little to change the Corps' culture of bad decisions that affect Rio de Flag and similar projects. Congress will not be blameless if a flood event larger than what Flagstaff occasionally sees inundates the city, destroys property, or claims innocent lives. I appreciate the need to pass a WRDA bill after 7 years, but I am concerned that this bill is just a new coat of paint on the same broken system. I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference agreement.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New York for his 5-minute speech. I am pleased to join today with my friend and colleague Senator Flake to express support for this diverse and historic slate of nominees to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Between today and tomorrow, the Senate will hopefully vote to confirm six judges to the Federal court in Arizona, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these nominees. I am very pleased to have worked with my colleague Senator Flake. Together we have put together a group of people who have devoted their time and effort in our State, who represent the best and the brightest legal minds and judicial experience in our State on a bipartisan basis, and we acted, very frankly, on the unanimous recommendation of this group of outstanding citizens of Arizona who put forth these recommendations. I am very proud that some of these nominees are indeed historic, including the fact that one of the nominees, Diane Humetewa, has an impressive legal background ranging from work as a prosecutor and appellate court judge to the Hopi nation. She served the U.S. attorney for the District of Arizona. And hers is a historic nomination. If confirmed, Diane Humetewa will be the first Native American woman to ever serve on the Federal bench, and we are very proud of her and the other five. The Federal district court of Arizona has been under tremendous strain these past few years, and the confirmation of these six judges will be a great relief to an overburdened court, one which is consistently ranked as one of the top 10 busiest in the country. Of the 13 authorized judgeships for this court, 6 are currently vacant. This, together with the large caseload, led the District of Arizona to declare a judicial emergency in 2011. This has created an untenable situation for the court in Arizona, and the confirmation of these nominees is critical to ensure that the administration of justice is timely and fair for the people of Arizona. The slate of nominees before the Senate, as I mentioned earlier, is the product of consensus, cooperation, and careful deliberation, selected with the help of a nonpartisan judiciary evaluation commission. They saw overwhelming support in the Judiciary Committee here in the Senate, and the brief descriptions that follow only begin to capture the breadth of these nominees' experiences and the depth of their commitment to our legal system. Judge Steven Logan has already proved to be an asset to the district court in Arizona, where he currently serves as a magistrate judge. That experience, together with his work as an immigration judge and military trial judge, makes him uniquely qualified to serve as an article III judge. John Tuchi currently serves as chief assistant to the U.S. attorney and has the qualifications to be a district judge based in part on his dedication to public service, extensive trial experience, and practice before Federal courts. Judge Douglas Rayes, also nominated for the Phoenix Division, currently serves as a Maricopa County superior court judge, where he has presided over thousands of cases in family law, criminal law, and complex litigation. Together with 18 years in private practice, Judge Rayes' experience and insight will be valuable to the Federal court. Rosemary Marquez has worked as a public defender and prosecutor as well as in private practice. Her extensive experience working in border districts and her Hispanic heritage will be invaluable assets to the Federal court. Lastly, Judge James Soto, whose experience includes running a private practice that covered a broad array of commercial, civil, and criminal cases and service on the Santa Cruz County Superior Court, together with an understanding of issues important to border communities, have prepared him to serve ably as a district judge in Tucson. Each of these nominees has shown commitment to justice, public service, and the people of Arizona. Each also has demonstrated the judicial temperament and professional demeanor necessary to serve in this capacity with integrity. I urge my colleagues to support these nominees--the three we are voting on today and hopefully the three who will be voted on tomorrow morning--by voting yes for cloture and for final confirmation. I again wish to thank all those individuals who were a part of the commission that came up with these recommendations. I wish to thank my friend and colleague Senator Flake, also a member of the Judiciary Committee, for the important role he played in bringing these nominees before the Senate. I am confident they will serve the State of Arizona with honor and distinction. I would also point out that some of these nominees may not be of the same party as Senator Flake and me and there may not be specific agreements on every issue and position that these nominees have taken, but I am confident of their ability to serve this Nation and the people of Arizona. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I would like to mention to my colleagues that with this vote we will be making history in some respects. We should all be proud that this nominee, Diane Humetewa of the Hopi Tribe, will be the first Native-American woman to be on the Federal bench. I would appreciate a positive vote. It is a proud moment for her, her tribe, and for Native Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I was honored to take part in a ceremony honoring Israeli President Shimon Peres. I ask unanimous consent that the remarks I made at the ceremony be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, as consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015 proceeds in earnest, and with the recent release and annual assessments of the Department of Defense major procurement programs by the Government Accountability Office and the Pentagon's Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation, we are, once again, reminded of the DOD's chronic inability to rein in costs associated with its largest and most expensive weapon and information technology systems. This is, of course, a problem the DOD--the Department of Defense--has struggled with for years. During every one of these years, I brought this problem to the attention of the American people, both in the Senate Armed Services Committee and here on the floor of the Senate. So I need not go over again the frustrating litany of costly procurement failures at the Department of Defense. At this point we are all aware of the future combat system, the Army's ``transformational'' vehicle and communications modernization program, in which the military and the U.S. Army wasted almost $20 billion developing 18 vehicles and drones, only one of which actually went into production. In other words, they blew $19 billion. As had been done on other programs, on the Future Combat Systems, the Army held a ``paper competition'' to select contractors far in advance of fielding any actual prototypes. But it awarded control to two separate companies and let them, not the government, hold their own internal competitions to determine who would test and build the vehicles and systems--encumbering the program with a dizzying array of conflicts of interest and preferred-supplier preferences that chipped away at the program from the inside out. As for the Air Force, its Expeditionary Combat Support System--the ECSS program--wasted over 1 billion taxpayer dollars attempting to procure and integrate a ``commercial off-the-shelf'' logistics IT system. That effort resulted in no usable capability for the Air Force, and taxpayers were forced to pay an additional $8 million in severance costs to the company that failed in its mission. The Marine Corps, in turn, spent 15 years and $3 billion on its Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle before canceling the program in 2012--another $3 billion down the drain. While there are so many other failures, we shouldn't forget the VH-71 program--the presidential helicopter program--with which the Navy attempted to procure a new presidential helicopter. Before that program's cancellation in 2009, taxpayers were forced to pay $3.2 billion and got exactly zero helicopters. Our ``joint service'' programs have also faced profound difficulties. Even though the Department of Defense has not completed development testing on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, that program is already well into production, exposing it to the risk of costly retrofits late in production. While today the Joint Strike Fighter Program is on a more stable path to succeed, during a recent Airland Subcommittee hearing on tactical aircraft programs, I asked the head of the program, Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, what lessons the DOD learned from that program's costly failures. By the way, it is the most expensive weapons system ever--a $1 trillion weapons system. He identified three lessons: the danger of overly optimistic initial cost estimates, the importance of reliable technological risk estimates, and the complexity and costs of building next-generation planes while still testing them. That is, of course, a post mortem that we are all very familiar with, including on some of the failed acquisition programs to which I just alluded. For that reason, Congress enacted the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. That law instituted reforms to make sure that new major weapons procurement programs start off right, with accurate initial cost estimates, reliable technological risk assessments, and only reasonable ``concurrency,'' and stable operational requirements. While the Government Accountability Office found this law had a ``significant influence'' on requirements, cost, schedule, testing, and reliability for the acquisition of new major weapons systems, there is still much to do, especially on the so-called ``legacy'' systems already well into the development pipeline. According to the Government Accountability Office, the cost of the Pentagon's major weapons systems--that is 80 systems in total--have swollen to nearly one-half trillion dollars over their initial price tags and have average schedule delays of more than 2 years. I will repeat that for the benefit of the Pentagon, my colleagues here in the Senate, and the American people. The Government Accountability Office says the cost of the Pentagon's major weapons systems, of which there are 80 in total, have swollen to nearly one- half trillion dollars--that is T, trillion dollars--over their initial price tags--their initial cost estimates--and have average schedule delays of more than 2 years. That is not acceptable. That is not acceptable to the American people, it should not be acceptable to Members of Congress, and it sure as heck shouldn't be acceptable to the people who are responsible for these cost overruns. That is the Pentagon and that is these manufacturers. Against this backdrop, I will briefly discuss two critical aspects of how the Department of Defense procures major systems--real competition and accountability. In my view, it is no coincidence that the period of remarkably poor performance among our largest weapons procurement programs has coincided with a dramatic contraction in the industrial base, due, in large part, to consolidation among the Nation's top-tier contractors. For this reason the Department of Defense must structure into its strategies to acquire major systems true competition--not like fake competition--as we saw in the Future Combat System or as proponents for an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter once advocated. According to the Government Accountability Office, in fiscal year 2013, only 57 percent--I repeat, 57 percent--of the $300 billion the Department of Defense obligated for contracts and orders was actually competed. In other words, only in a little over half of the $300 billion--roughly $150 billion--in contracts and orders was there actually any competition. Unacceptable. Competition should be driven through the subsystems level, and it should be reflected in approaches that foster innovation and small business participation throughout a system's entire lifecycle. Especially within the Navy's ``shipbuilding and conversion'' account and the Air Force's ``missile procurement'' account, costs associated with the Ohio-class replacement submarine and the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle--that is our space effort--those programs respectively, will severely pressurize other procurement priorities within these same aspects of Pentagon spending. So within these particular areas, harnessing competitive forces to drive down costs and keep them down will be enormously important. There can, however, be no doubt that during a year of declining budgets and, therefore, fewer opportunities to support an already diminished industrial base, this will be extraordinarily difficult. So we should be embracing competition--even the prospect of it--wherever and however we find it. In the Littoral Combat Ship Program, the Navy's strategy to bring competition into the construction of the follow-on ships' seaframes successfully drove down those costs after the cost to complete construction of the lead ships' seaframes exploded--the costs exploded. While doing so resulted in a dual-award block-buy contract, which I thought, and continue to think, was ill-advised, and serious problems persist with the Littoral Combat Ship's mission modules--in other words, the ship's ability to carry out its assigned missions--there can be no doubt that competition was just what the program needed. After having found in 2012 that competition for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, i.e., our space program, could lower costs for the government, the Government Accountability Office reiterated the importance of competition generally in a report released today, stating that, ``[c]ompetition is the cornerstone of a sound acquisition process.'' Remember those words by the Government Accountability Office, as I go on: Competition is the cornerstone of a sound acquisition process. It is exactly for this reason I have been concerned with what I have seen in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, a critical national security space launch program. In the absence of competition and amidst a highly suspect effort to minimize internal Pentagon and congressional oversight of the program, which I corrected just a couple of years ago, the costs of this program have exploded. There are higher inflation costs for this program than any other program in the entire program. Only after that program critically breached cost thresholds under Federal law--the so-called Nunn-McCurdy--in other words, after the inflation of the costs were so high Federal law threatened its existence--did the Department of Defense finally recognize the value-- indeed, the need--for competition. Yet despite a directive by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to the Air Force to ``aggressively'' introduce competition into the program, and just weeks before the Air Force knew--the Air Force knew--that a prospective new entrant to the program would qualify as a bidder, the Air Force awarded a 3-year sole-source block-buy contract to the incumbent contractor. Just weeks before they knew there would be competition, they allowed and awarded a program to the one bidder, sole source, at a huge cost. The Air Force did so in a way that exposed only those launches designated for competition to the greatest risk of delay or cancellation. Then, just a few weeks ago, in connection with its budget request for fiscal year 2015, the Air Force proposed to cut the number of launches designated for competition in half. They gut the number of launches designated for competition to half, in part to satisfy the Air Force's existing obligation to the incumbent contractor under the sole- source block-buy contract. Why the Air Force made all those decisions in that program, which so desperately needs competition, is unclear. But the evidence of incumbency favoritism I have seen to date was strong enough for me to refer the matter to the Department of Defense Inspector General for investigation. That favoritism apparently extended to the DOD's failure to ensure that the incumbent contractor's efforts to import rocket engines from Russia--we are importing rocket engines for our space launch program from Russia in a noncompetitive contract--did not run afoul of the President's Executive order sanctioning certain Russian persons in connection with Russia's activities in eastern Ukraine. It took a prospective bidder--not the Pentagon, but a prospective bidder; that is, a possible competitor--to file a lawsuit in Federal court to ensure compliance with the President's Executive order. We all look forward to the inspector general's findings. In addition to the EELV, I will also be monitoring the Army's modernization program to build nearly 3,000 armored personnel carriers. This program too appears to lack any meaningful competition, having obtained a waiver to skip over building working prototypes and thereby ignoring the acquisition best practice of fly before you buy. Way back many years ago when Ronald Reagan became President of the United States, our then-Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger said: Fly before you buy. Fly before you buy. It is clear. I do not think anybody builds anything in America today if they do not test it out before they purchase it en bloc or produce it en bloc. Yet the Pentagon continues to ignore the fundamental principle of fly before you buy. There is also clearly more that needs to be done to ensure accountability in how the Department of Defense procures major weapons and information technology systems. Ensuring accountability means having in place the right acquisition managers when large procurement programs start instead of bringing them in years after those programs have foundered. Those managers must see and be willing to enforce affordability as an operational requirement and know how to effectively incentivize their industry partners to control costs. Also, within a system that better aligns their tenure with key management decisions on their programs, those managers--trained to be as competent and skillful a buyer as their industry counterparts are sellers--need to be empowered to make those decisions in their best professional judgment, and they need to do so within an overall system that holds them accountable if they are wrong and rewards them if they are successful. Regrettably, that is not our defense acquisition system. In our system, instead of accountability, a systemic misalignment of incentives reigns--incentives that assign a premium to overly optimistic initial cost estimates and technological risk assessments. In our system, what is all-important is getting activity ``under contract,'' ``keeping the money flowing,'' and maintaining budgets. Our system allows the Department of Defense to start programs that are poorly conceived or inherently unexecutable with the aim of getting them ``on rails''--into the development pipeline--and, if possible, simultaneously into production. At that point, given the extent to which they have been engineered so that their economic benefits are distributed among key States and congressional districts, those programs become notoriously difficult to terminate or meaningfully change. Why? Because our system keeps them alive, often at an exorbitant cost and, in the worst cases, without ever providing meaningful combat capability. My friends, it is called the military-industrial-congressional complex. Dwight David Eisenhower, in his last major speech, warned us of the military-industrial complex. It is now the military-industrial- congressional complex. It is a politically engineered, ill-defined, massive ``transformational'' procurement program, with an unlimited tolerance for excessive concurrency, largely funded on a cost- reimbursable basis, with the prime contractor allowed to maximize profit without necessarily delivering needed capability to our service men and women on budget or on time. To say that such a system is unsustainable is charitable. It is a system that, if allowed to continue unabated, will have us bestow on our children and theirs de facto unilateral disarmament for which they will have no say and from which our Nation will have no recourse. Rather than wallow in discouragement, however, we must let that odious proposition motivate us to reform the current system with meaningful change, in particular to the Pentagon's culture of inefficiency that has eluded us for a generation. One thing is clear: Today we have a choice. Tomorrow we will not. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. What is the request?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I will not object--but I ask unanimous consent that following the completion of what was just discussed that the Senator from South Carolina and I be allowed 20 minutes for time to speak.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, how much time is remaining before the vote?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the votes Senator Graham and I be allowed 20 minutes to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.