John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, earlier today, I voted against confirmation for Theodore David Chuang to be U.S. district judge for the District of Maryland because of his involvement in the State Department's response to Congressional inquiries into the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. The State Department refused to comply with a subpoena from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee without citing any valid privilege. I cannot support any nominee who played a part in stonewalling attempts by Congress to uncover the truth surrounding the events in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, 19 months ago a terrible thing happened in Benghazi, Libya. Four brave Americans were murdered, and the issue has not only not been resolved but as each of the last 19 months has ensued, the issue of how and under what circumstances this heinous crime was committed continues. The Senator from South Carolina and I, the Senator from New Hampshire, and some others, have vowed we will never give up on this issue until the truth is known and the people who perpetrated it are brought to justice. We have seen another page turn in this chapter of coverup and obfuscation by this administration by the belated--19 months later-- release of the following emails. The first one we will not pay much attention to. This is from Benjamin Rhodes, who is supposed to be the public affairs officer for the National Security Council. In fact, he is obviously the propaganda organ. The goals, as he states them, are to underscore these protests are rooted in an Internet video and not a broader failure of policy. I tell my colleagues that was not a fact. That was not a fact. There was no evidence these protests were rooted in an Internet video. In fact, the station chief before these talking points were made up sent a message that this is not--not--a spontaneous demonstration. To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who bring harm to Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests; to reinforce the President's strength and steadiness--that is all about the Presidential campaign. It is not about trying to find out who perpetrated this heinous crime. It is not about trying to respond to the people who committed these acts. In fact, because of the coverup and the obfuscation and now 19-month delay, not a single person who was responsible for the murder of these four brave Americans has been brought to justice, as the President promised they would be. Yesterday Mr. Carney said the release of this information had nothing to do with the attack on Benghazi. My friends, I have heard a lot of strange things in my time, but that has to be the most bizarre statement I have ever heard. This is all about a Presidential campaign. This is all about an effort to convince the American people the President of the United States had everything under control. The next day, on the Sunday talk shows, Susan Rice said Al Qaeda had been decimated. False; that the embassy was safe and stable and secure. False. And of course the whole issue of blaming an Internet video lasted on and on for a couple of weeks when it was clear the evidence did not indicate that. I yield to my friend from South Carolina on this issue, and then I will return.

Mr. McCAIN. I might add that all of the emails were supposed to be given to the Congress in return for the confirmation of Mr. Brennan as head of the CIA. They didn't do that.

Mr. McCAIN. And the next day the station chief sent a message that there was ``not-slash-not spontaneous demonstration.''

Mr. McCAIN. And the fact is, I would say to my friend, the time has now come for a select committee. The time has now come because these talking points raise more questions than answers. It is time for a bipartisan, bicameral select committee to investigate the entire Benghazi fiasco and tragedy, and it needs to be done soon. The American people and the families of those brave ones who sacrificed their lives deserve nothing less. My friend Senator Graham mentioned the media. I would like to say thanks. I would like to say thanks to FOX News. I would like to say thanks to some at CBS. I would like to say thanks to Charles Krauthammer and the handful of people who kept this alive when the ``mainstream media'' not only wanted to bury it but subjected, of course, as Senator Graham just mentioned, him and me to ridicule. I wish to go back for a second to this email. In response to questions yesterday by Mr. Carney, the White House Press spokesperson, if we look at this email and then look at what Mr. Carney said, it is an absolute falsehood. It is a total departure from reality. How does the President's spokesperson tell the American people something that is patently false? The President's spokesperson, in regard to this email that says to show ``these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy''--what was he talking about? He says Rhodes' email ``was explicitly not about Benghazi.'' Well, then what was it about? Then he goes on to say: The fact of the matter is, there were protests in the region. The talking points cited protests at that facility. They didn't. The talking points did not cite protests at that facility--i.e, Benghazi. The connection between protests and video--and the video turned out not to be the case-- It turned out not to be the case because it was never the case and no one ever believed it-- but it was based on the best information that we had. He had no information that there was a spontaneous demonstration sparked by a video. That was manufactured somewhere. The American people and we need to know where those talking points came from that Susan Rice gave. He goes on to say: If you look at that document, that document that we're talking about today was about the overall environment in the Muslim world. How could he say that and look at this email here? Talking about events in the Muslim world? And of course he goes on to say, talking about Susan Rice: She relied on her--for her answers on Benghazi, on the document prepared by the CIA, as did members of Congress. Mr. Morell, the deputy head of the CIA at that time, said he was astonished to hear that there was reference made on all five Sunday morning shows that there was a hateful video involved. So Mr. Carney is saying things that are absolutely false. The American people deserve better than that from the President's spokesperson whom they rely on for accurate information. When the bodies came home, and it was a moving event--I was there--the then- Secretary of State told members of the family and told me: We will get these people who were responsible for the hateful video. That was a number of days later when it was absolutely proven to anyone's satisfaction there was no hateful video, and of course we still don't know what the final version of the talking points was that Susan Rice used on all the morning talk shows, who was the final arbiter of it. We know now that Mr. Rhodes played a very key role in that, and we need to know who gave her those talking points because they are patently false. If someone gave her those talking points, then why in the world did that person manufacture out of whole cloth information that was told to the American people? There are a lot of points here, and we can get into some of the details, but the fact is that this is a coverup of a situation which was politically motivated in order to further the Presidential ambitions of the President of the United States. That is what this is all about. That is why comments and instructions were given in this email, because the narrative was: The tide of war is receding, Osama bin Laden is dead. Secretary Susan Rice said at the time: Al Qaeda is decimated and the Embassy is safe and secure. None of those facts were true. Most importantly, we have five Americans who were killed. It is very clear that should not have happened, would not have happened if proper actions had been taken. Most important now or just as important now is the fact that for the last 19 months this White House has been engaged in a coverup. It calls for a select committee to examine all of the facts, and as always happens in these kinds of scandals, the coverup is equally or sometimes worse than the actual action itself. The American people deserve to know the truth. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. Today we commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. This week, again and again, I will rise to remind my colleagues and fellow citizens of the humanity we share and appeal to their conscience about the mass atrocities the Assad regime is perpetrating in Syria. This past Sunday the world joined Rwanda in marking 20 years since the beginning of the genocide that claimed the lives of more than 800,000 innocent men, women, and children. As we reflect on our failures to stop the genocide there, I can't help but think of the lessons we learned from Rwanda and those we didn't. President Obama stated in his remarks on Sunday that the Rwandan genocide was ``neither an accident nor unavoidable. . . . The genocide we remember today--and the world's failure to respond more quickly-- reminds us that we always have a choice. In the face of hatred, we must remember the humanity we share. In the face of cruelty, we must choose compassion. In the face of intolerance and suffering, we must never be indifferent.'' I couldn't agree more with the President of the United States. The United States, along with the international community, failed to take the necessary action to prevent a tragedy in Rwanda. We chose to ignore the death of hundreds of thousands of people, and in so doing we forsook our humanity. And now we are dangerously close to doing the same in Syria. While I would like to believe that ``never again'' means something in this context, I look around the world today, and I am haunted by the fact that we simply haven't learned the fundamental lesson from Rwanda that preventing the slaughter of innocents means taking hard political action. Nowhere is this truer than in Syria, where President Bashar Assad's regime continues its brutal assault against the Syrian people with increasing ferocity. The slaughter of innocent men, women, and children is being carried out by Syria's national army and loyal paramilitaries as a result of state policy, and the terror continues to escalate every day that Assad's crimes go unpunished. The regime has accelerated attacks against civilians by indiscriminately dropping barbaric barrel bombs on mosques, schools, and bakeries, systematically detaining, torturing, and killing thousands of people--including hundreds of children--and starving entire neighborhoods to death. It was over 5 months ago that Secretary John Kerry wrote that ``the world must act quickly'' to stop a ``war of starvation'' being waged by Assad's regime against ``huge portions of the population.'' Yet the world did nothing, and hundreds have died of starvation--thousands--in those 5 months. Eventually the international community responded by passing resolution 2139 through the U.N. Security Council, which ordered the regime to promptly allow unhindered humanitarian access and threatened further consequences for noncompliance. This was 2 months ago, and yet again the world did nothing to back the resolution. In fact, the U.N. humanitarian coordinator, Valerie Amos, reports that the war of starvation has worsened since its passing. The number of Syrians cut off from aid since January has grown by over 1 million people. The Syrian Government continues to prevent supplies of food from entering opposition-held areas, in direct contravention of the U.N. resolution, and it is using U.S.-provided humanitarian aid as leverage in its war against the people. Meanwhile, Iran sends 30,000 tons of food supplies to Assad's regime. While children starve throughout Syria, the government is at least well fed. Although 800,000 people have not been slaughtered in mere months, as was the case in Rwanda, over the course of 3 years of conflict in Syria, we have witnessed 9 million people forced from their homes, with 2.5 million refugees escaping the violence in neighboring countries, and an estimated 150,000 people dead, with casualties escalating daily. Regardless of the scale or scope, one fact is clear: The world is watching genocide in slow motion, but it seems that regardless of how many innocent men, women, and children die in Syria, the world's conscience will not be tipped. What is happening in Syria should be an affront to our conscience, and it should be a call to action. Each day the media floods our newspapers and television screens with some gruesome and horrific evidence of Assad's war crimes. We cannot claim ignorance as we have in the past. Yet we do nothing. It is as if watching all the suffering and simply feeling bad about it has become an adequate moral response. Conventional wisdom tells us that this is because the American public is war-weary. We are scarred by our experience in Afghanistan and Iraq and thus unwilling to get involved in another conflict in the Middle East. This sentiment is reinforced by the President, who prides himself on having opposed the war on Iraq and getting America out of the region as quickly as possible regardless of the ramifications. He has emphasized the need to ``contain'' the conflict in Syria, calling it a ``civil war'' and neglecting the dangerous spillover effects we are already witnessing, including the destabilization of all of Syria's neighbors and the growth of an Al Qaeda safe haven in eastern Syria and western Iraq. Following the President's lead, the American public has largely applauded his restraint and opposed greater U.S. involvement in Syria. But in so doing we have again failed the legacy of Rwanda. Stopping the slaughter in Syria will require difficult political action, but it is not only profoundly in our national interest to act but also our moral obligation to do so. In his remarks on Sunday, President Obama said that we should be reminded of ``our obligations to our fellow man.'' As President, he is the one who should be showing to the American people why it is so vital to our national interest to carry out our moral obligations to our fellow man. Our policy should be determined by the realities of the moment, not by today's isolationism dictated by the past. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have nothing to do with how we carry out our responsibilities today. Let there be no mistake; we have a responsibility to stop genocide when we see it happening, as in Syria. ``Never again'' should mean something whether or not we are paralyzed by war-weariness. Of course we would all like to see the slaughter of Syria's innocent men, women, and children be stopped by diplomacy and through nonviolent means. We all want an end to the violence. We all want to believe that a political solution is possible. But there are only two ways to end the violence. One is for all parties to put down their weapons-- something President Bashar Assad and his Iranian partners are clearly unwilling to do, as they believe a military solution is possible. So that leaves us with only one other option: to neutralize the party dedicated to the slaughter of innocents and force them to put down their guns. There are options to achieve this goal that fall far short of putting boots on the ground. We do not need to concede and allow genocide to continue or to go to war to prevent it. There are steps in between that the United States, along with our international partners, can take to stand by our international commitments and guarantees of protection. President Assad has already shown that U.N. resolutions mean nothing to him and that he has no intention of negotiating his departure through the Geneva process. It is clear that military pressure is the only lever that will convince Assad that a political solution is in his favor. We must be ready to prove to Assad that not achieving a diplomatic solution will cost his regime dearly, and there are meaningful actions we can take to help in Syria that will not require us to rerun the war in Iraq. It is not a question of options or capabilities, it is a question of will. There is a famous quote that states, ``All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.'' As we sit back and place our hopes on negotiations and meaningless guarantees of protection, we watch as hundreds of innocent men, women, and children are brutally slaughtered every day; reinvigorated Al Qaeda affiliates operate with more freedom than ever before; terrorist groups loyal to Iran proliferate and threaten our allies; and the region descends into chaos and turmoil that will inevitably reverberate in the United States of America. This is the price we will pay for choosing to remain disengaged, and the consequences to U.S. national interests will be felt. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two articles. One is a Reuters story entitled ``Assad says fighting largely over by end of year,'' a statement by a former Russian Prime Minister with a quote: Assad's strength now lies in the fact that, unlike Yanukovich, he has practically no internal enemies. He has a consolidated, cleansed team. The second is ``Hezbollah confident in Assad, West resigned to Syria stalemate.''

Mr. McCAIN. I won't include it in the Record, but there is an interesting article that states, ``Syria's Assad secure, will seek re- election: Hezbollah leader.'' To show, I think, the very incredible naivety, there is an article in the Washington Post by Secretary Kerry entitled ``Kerry: US strike in Syria wouldn't be devastating.'' The Secretary of State says: ``It would not have had a devastating impact by which he had to recalculate, because it wasn't going to last that long,'' Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. ``Here we were going to have one or two days to degrade and send a message. . . . We came up with a better solution.'' We came up with a better solution. The President of the United States said that if Bashar Assad crossed a red line and used chemical weapons, we would act. He announced we would act. All our allies knew we were going to act. Then he took a walk with his national security adviser and said he was going to go to Congress. Meanwhile, Senator Kerry, in a bizarre, incredible act, issued a statement that any attack on Syria would be ``incredibly small.'' It is remarkable. Finally, our conscience should be shot, but it is not. We get kind of immune to day after day after day of these various reports of the slaughter that is going on. Look at the situation in Syria 3 years ago and look at it today: 150,000 dead, millions displaced; entry of jihadist fighters from all over the world who continue brutal bombing with barrel bombs which will slaughter innocent men, women, and children; and our Secretary of State says: Well, it wouldn't have been much if we would have struck them anyway. This is a shameful chapter in American history, I say to my colleagues. Historians in future generations will judge us very harshly, and future generations and younger generations may have to pay the price for our inaction and our neglect of our basic human values. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Ohio for his service on one of the very remarkable experiences that one could have at Gallaudet University--the wonderful, loving, caring people who make us all proud of their success. I thank him for his involvement. I also thank him for honoring our heroes today of long ago and far away when the United States was in great jeopardy. Littoral Combat Ship Program I rise to bring attention to the Navy's littoral combat ship--with not a great deal of pleasure in doing so. It is a troubled major defense acquisition program that, if not properly addressed, will join a list of failed procurements at the Department of Defense. From the 13 arduous years LCS has been in development, we have learned yet again an important costly basic lesson: If we don't know what we really want when we procure a weapons system, we are likely not to like what we get, if we get anything. In this case, the Navy's poor planning continues to frustrate its ability to state a clear role for LCS, the littoral combat ship, has led to dramatic cost increases, years of wasted effort, and a ship that the U.S. Pacific Command Commander Admiral Locklear recently conceded only ``partially'' satisfies his operational requirements. The list of how the Littoral Combat Ship Program has failed is ironic and--given the amount of taxpayers' investment to date--shameful. In LCS we have, No. 1, a supposed warship that apparently can't survive a hostile combat environment; No. 2, a program chosen for affordability that doubled in cost since inception and is subject to the risk of further cost growth as testing continues; No. 3, a ``revolutionary'' design that somehow has managed to be inferior to what came before it on important performance measures; and, No. 4, a system designed for flexibility that cannot successfully demonstrate its most important warfighting functions. Like so many major programs that preceded it, LCS's failure followed predictably from a chronic lack of careful planning from its very outset in three areas: undefined requirements, unrealistic initial cost estimates, and unreliable assessments of technological and integration risk. In 2002, the Navy submitted its first request to Congress to authorize funding for the LCS Program. Yet even then the program's lack of defined requirements drew criticism from the Armed Services Committee conferees. The conferees noted that: LCS has not been vetted through the [Pentagon's top requirements-setting body, called the] Joint Requirements Oversight Council [and that] the Navy's strategy for the LCS does not clearly identify the plan and funding for development and evaluation of the mission packages upon which the operational capabilities of LCS will depend. Despite the conferees' concerns, Congress approved funding for the LCS Program and authorized hundreds of millions of dollars for a program without well-defined frozen requirements. The Navy, therefore, charged ahead with production without a stable design or realistic cost estimates. That resulted in frequent costly changes to the ships, even as they were being built. Originally, the Navy wanted a small, fast, affordable ship to augment larger ships in the fleet, with several interchangeable plug-and-play mission modules that would be used with aluminum and, separately, steel-hull seaframes. LCS was to serve multiple roles operating in coastal or open waters as part of a larger battle force. The Navy could have easily procured a small warship similar to those already serving in naval fleets around the world. The capabilities of such ships were well-known at the time and would have required much less development. The Navy could also have upgraded older ships with a proven track record. Without any formal analysis of those reasonable alternatives, the Navy opted instead to develop a high-risk ``revolutionary'' ship that bore little resemblance to anything else in the fleet. Despite the foreseeable costs of building LCS seaframes while development was still ongoing, LCS's original cost estimates were overly optimistic. Navy officials have since characterized those estimates as ``more of a hopeful forcing function than a realistic appraisal of likely costs.'' I can assure my colleagues that if we had known that was the Navy's cost estimates at the time--hopeful forcing function, more than a realistic appraisal of likely costs--I can assure my colleagues we would never have approved it. While hope for low costs may spring eternal, reality is a far more helpful basis in generating cost estimates. In this case, a realistic estimate would have allowed legislators and top defense acquisition managers alike to make much more informed decisions on procuring the LCS. But because of poor planning early in the program, LCS suffered through years of waste while demonstrating little in the way of desired combat capability. Hundreds of millions of dollars continued to pour into LCS each year, even though the program continually failed to deliver useful capability or conclusively flesh out the ship's unstable design. Finally, in 2007--remember, 5 years later--Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter identified a need to slow down production so that a clear LCS design could be established and fixed-price agreements could be pursued before more taxpayer dollars were wasted. I strongly supported Secretary Winter's actions, and I still believe that he effectively highlighted the extent to which LCS was slipping out of control. It was not until 2010, however, that the Navy ultimately began to implement guidelines to bring skyrocketing LCS costs under control. With congressional approval, the Navy overhauled and restructured the LCS Program and, since then, the cost of building LCS's seaframes has finally stabilized. But even though the Navy has stabilized these costs, the large investments sunk into the program to date have still not yielded commensurate combat capability. Since the early stages of LCS procurement, I have attempted to shine a light on the lack of planning that has plagued the program. Last year, I authored legislation to reduce LCS production and require validation by the Department of Defense and the Navy that the program's seaframes and mission packages were on schedule and would meet the capability requirements of combatant commanders prior to additional funding. Congress spoke resolutely on the issue approving that legislation and sending a clear message the LCS would need to justify its existence with meaningful progress toward becoming operational. Despite that the cost to complete the construction of the seaframes has stabilized over the past few years, LCS continues to face another potentially crippling consequence of poor planning, and that is a serious lack in capability. Just last month, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel identified this problem while announcing that the President's budget request for fiscal year 2015 would reduce LCS production by 40 percent, from 52 ships to 32 ships. Secretary Hagel said: The LCS was designed to perform certain missions--such as mine-sweeping anti-submarine warfare--in a relatively permissive environment. But we need to closely examine whether the LCS has the independent protection and firepower to operate and survive against a more advanced military adversary and emerging new technologies, especially in the Asia Pacific. Other Department of Defense leaders have expressed similar doubts about LCS's abilities to survive combat situations. Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense Christine Fox in a speech on February 11, 2014, said: Niche platforms that can conduct a certain mission in a permissive environment have a valuable place in the Navy's inventory, yet we need more ships with the protection and firepower to survive against a more advanced military adversary. The prospect of sending LCS into combat with the lives of American sailors at risk is even more chilling in the aftermath of the Government Accountability Office's July 2013 report on LCS. Early in LCS's development, the Navy intended for the ship to be a self- sufficient combatant that could engage in major combat operations and survive in a battlespace actively contested by enemy forces. According to the Government Accountability Office, however, more recent Navy assessments suggest that LCS has little chance of survival in a combat scenario. Instead, LCS can only be safely employed in a relatively benign, low-threat environment. GAO also found deficiencies in the ability of LCS to operate independently in combat, turning a supposedly capable warship into a vessel requiring significant support from larger ships of the fleet. Such fundamental uncertainty about LCS's capacity to function as a warship in a combat environment demonstrates a lack of clarity regarding LCS's actual capabilities. Recent GAO assessments continue to highlight major problems regarding the LCS Program. According to an article last Friday, a soon-to-be released GAO report will validate the need for LCS to be subject to rigorous testing and evaluation, not just anecdotal lessons learned from a single overseas deployment. And there is talk of another impending GAO report critical of LCS that will also likely echo the issues I have long cited that continue to plague this program. GAO is not alone in expressing concern about LCS's capabilities. In January 2014 the Department of Defense Director of Operational Test and Evaluation published his annual report and noted that weapons systems aboard each of the two LCS variants are struggling to demonstrate required capabilities. The report noted: The Navy has not yet conducted comprehensive operational testing of the LCS [and is] still developing the concept of employment for these ships in each of the mission areas. It is worth taking a moment to step back and consider the absurdity of this situation. Planning and development of LCS has been going on for 12 years, roughly triple the time it took to fight and win the Second World War. In that time, the Navy has spent billions of dollars and failed to even figure out how to use the ships it is procuring once those ships demonstrate some semblance of capability. And lest we forget, whether LCS will ultimately be operationally effective, suitable, and survivable remains at best unclear. Failure this comprehensive is incredible, even for our broken defense procurement system. The individual mission packages that were supposed to give LCS its real functionality in the fleet present another area of major concern. The LCS's are meant to be outfitted with one of three interchangeable mission packages tailored for particular roles in the fleet--antisubmarine warfare, surface warfare, and mine countermeasures. So far, the mission packages have experienced significant performance issues. The antisubmarine warfare mission package has suffered particularly severe setbacks in recent years. When the antisubmarine package was tested by the Navy, it actually demonstrated less capability than predecessor systems. The Navy subsequently canceled the package and reportedly revised its entire strategy for procuring that aspect of LCS. The Navy has now stated a goal of fielding the antisubmarine mission package by 2018, but no independent assessment has been performed to evaluate the likelihood the Navy will meet that 2018 goal. The program's performance to date, of course, does not fill me with confidence that the goal will be reached on schedule. The other mission packages have also experienced major problems. The Navy has taken delivery of early versions of the surface warfare and mine warfare mission packages. But according to GAO, both packages have experienced significant performance issues and neither has yet been fully integrated into the LCS seaframes. The mine countermeasures mission package, considered by many experts to be the most important, is more than 4 years behind schedule. According to the DOD's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the mine countermeasures mission package has yet to demonstrate any of its required capabilities. Given the utter failure of the mine countermeasures mission package to date, the Navy has altered its plan for acquiring this package. The full package will be delivered over a series of four increments and, if everything goes according to plan, the Navy will successfully demonstrate the capability of the fourth and final increment in 2019, 18 years--18 years--after planning for the LCS Program commenced. Until then, the Navy will be forced to retain the current generation of minesweeping ships. Today, the Navy plans to purchase its final LCS seaframe in 2019, the same year when the mine countermeasures package is supposed to be ready. If the mine countermeasures package has suffered a delay by that point--and with the history of this program to date, a mere 1-year delay would qualify as an improvement--the Navy will have an entire fleet of LCS's with only two-thirds of their planned capability, even if all the other problems with the ships are fixed. All of the mission packages need significant further testing and have to overcome major integration challenges. That work is likely to drive up program costs and leave combatant commanders without the tools or capabilities they need for years to come. The LCS Program faces a daunting combination of capability failures and strategic confusion. The Navy does not know what the LCS seaframes will actually be capable of doing once all of them are purchased in 2019, and it does not know what role they will play, even if development miraculously goes according to plan. Against that backdrop, the need to slow this procurement is clear. Recently, we learned that, at Secretary Hagel's direction, the Navy has established a task force to determine how LCS can best serve the fleet going forward. The Navy should, above all else, not repeat the mistakes of the past, and Congress must hold the Navy to account at each step in the process. This means establishing requirements and sticking to them, setting a stable design and holding to it, and zealously guarding against further cost growth. I support Secretary Hagel's decision to limit LCS procurement to 32 ships. I have recommended further reducing the LCS procurement to 24 ships. More important than the raw number of ships, however, is the manner in which the procurement goes forward. As Congress considers the President's 2015 budget request and continues to conduct oversight of LCS and every major defense acquisition program, we would be wise to understand this particular program's failings or risk repeating them. The program is still clearly riddled with uncertainty about what the ships will be used for and what they will be capable of. Production should not go forward until the Navy and DOD confirm that LCS provides greater capabilities than the legacy ships it is intended to replace and that the mission packages plus the seaframes have demonstrated the combined combat capability that our combatant commanders need. I understand that in connection with Secretary Hagel's direction to limit LCS's procurement and develop a more capable follow-on ship the Navy is underway brainstorming on possible alternatives to LCS that may provide it reliably with the capabilities it needs at a comparable cost. Before making final decisions on any procurement, however, the Navy must first determine what problem it is trying to solve--exactly what operational requirements do combatant commanders actually have that cannot be met with current capabilities? This is the step the LCS Program originally skipped. Only after that basic question is answered definitively should the Navy start considering what material solution could be brought to bear on that capability gap. On major defense acquisition programs, that should always be our approach--LCS or no LCS. While history of the LCS procurement supports my recommendation that we should not procure ships until we know what we want them to do, that outcome is also dictated by plain common sense. We live in an age of great fiscal uncertainty due to sequestration and other defense budget cuts. With that fiscal pressure, there is a much smaller margin for error in the procurement world. Every dollar wasted buying ships with unclear capabilities for unspecified missions is a dollar that could have supported a vital defense activity. The wastefulness of excessive concurrency--of buying a system that has not been tested and figuring out requirements and fixes on the fly--is more unacceptable than ever when so many good programs have to make do with sharply reduced funding. I will continue speaking out against wasteful concurrency, that is, acquisition malpractice, as I have done for years. In today's fiscal world, spending money as we have done in LCS is not just reckless, not just wasteful, it is dangerous. It actually weakens our national defense. It is my sincere hope and firm conviction that in the future we can prove ourselves better stewards of taxpayer money than we have in the past. And finally getting LCS right would be a big, long overdue step in that direction. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, after the financial crisis in 2008, its root causes and the resulting taxpayer-funded bailout; increasingly opaque trading activities that now dominate all stock-trading volume in the U.S.; a string of high-profile convictions of hedge-fund managers and equity analysts; and global settlements with investment banks involving every assortment of ``whale'' and dodgy tax-avoidance scheme, many Americans are now of the view that Wall Street is no longer a vehicle for the creation of investment capital or a reliable engine of entrepreneurialism and economic growth that it has become the province of high-frequency and automated traders. As billionaire investor and longtime HFT critic Mark Cuban admonished a few years ago, it has become a platform to be exploited by every technological and intellectual means possible by whoever can afford them. At least that is the perception. It is exactly that perception that has fueled major public concern about revelations contained in Michael Lewis' new book, ``Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt''. Lewis's book tells the story of the computer- driven world of high-frequency trading, HFT, co-location and customized data. Indeed, Lewis' narrative appears to have struck a raw nerve among consumers, by confirming a latent belief and skepticism that Wall Street is indeed an insider's game and that the public's best interests are, at most, an afterthought. If true, Lewis' claim that the market is rigged through variations of HFT could potentially affect everyone from institutional investors to any individual who pays into a pension or mutual fund. On HFT, one big issue is: how fair is it for certain firms to line their trading systems up with data centers used by exchanges to let them shave-off millionths of a second from every transaction, front-run the market, drive-up prices and profit accordingly, at the expense of average investors who do not enjoy that same capability. Another is: to what extent does HFT and so-called quick-draw trading expose the market to undue risk-taking and potential instability like the 2010 ``flash crash'', in which the Dow Jones dropped 9% in 20 minutes, temporarily erasing $1 trillion in market value? These are questions that must be taken seriously by policymakers; regulators; and, where warranted, law enforcement officials. Indeed, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, is rightly examining arrangements between HFT firms and exchanges to determine whether insiders are receiving competitive perks, such as reduced rates, that could harm smaller investors. The Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, is similarly looking into potentially improper relationships between exchanges and HFT firms. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has labeled certain pernicious HFT practices as ``Insider Trading 2.0'' and launched investigations into practices such as co- location, which permits trading firms to be geographically advantaged over competitors, and other arrangements that permit early access to market-moving information. Just yesterday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, disclosed that it was also looking into related matters. Congress, as well as regulators at the SEC and CFTC should fully investigate these issues and pursue proposals that can minimize systemic risk and bolster trust in our markets. But we cannot ignore the inherent limitations that exist in regulating an issue as complex as HFT. The technology and resources readily available to trading firms easily dwarf those available to our government's primary regulators. High-frequency traders have huge incentives to gain even the slightest edge through speed and technology because the pay-offs can be exorbitant. For example, a company called Spread Networks reportedly spent $300 million to lay a fiber-optic cable between Chicago and New Jersey to increase the time it took for information to make it from the futures market to the exchanges by 3 milliseconds. That amount nearly matches the entire operating budget of the CFTC for 2013. Policymakers, therefore, face an uphill battle in which regulatory fixes quickly become obsolete as the trading firms' approaches and algorithms adapt almost as rapidly as information travels on their fiber-optic cables. Against this backdrop, industry must see for itself an opportunity to self-regulate. Rather than hide behind self-serving, arcane arguments that support a status quo that allows for front-running and other unethical trading practices, industry must gather-around strong self- imposed, market-based solutions to the uncertainty and potential harm created by HFT that ensure fundamental fairness and transparency in markets that are technologically evolving at break-neck speed. Indeed, industry can either sit back and wait for regulators or Congress to address these issues with a possibly detrimental outcome for all concerned, or it can be proactive in developing meaningful approaches that not only address the instant problem but also help restore much- needed, long-overdue confidence in the integrity of the financial markets. Some leaders in industry have recently expressed support for reforms aimed at minimizing unfairness that stems from the ``fragmentation and complexity'' of trading. But more needs to be done: key exchanges, trading firms, investors, banks, and self-regulatory bodies such as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, FINRA, should explore potential solutions that would ensure technology is employed in a way that encourages competition and innovation, while also increasing the transparency and integrity of the markets. Congress should keep a watchful eye on developments in this field--I certainly will. Federal regulators and law enforcement should continue to hold accountable those actors and institutions that cross the line into illegality, market-manipulation, and acting on non-public information. Whatever policy solutions are pursued, they must both enhance the functionality of the market and restore public trust and confidence in Wall Street. Industry, specifically traders and exchanges, must focus on cooperation instead of clamoring for speed in a race to the bottom, which would only leave investors in the dust and force consumers to shoulder the burden of another financial crisis.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending legislation before the body. I urge the vote of all of my colleagues. This legislation is a bipartisan effort led by Senators Menendez and Corker, the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee. It is very important. Today the people of Ukraine will be watching the Senate and later the House as to whether we are going to give them initially the support they need after their country has been dismembered by Vladimir Putin in a blatant act of aggression that cannot go unresponded to. A long time ago, 15 March 1938, Adolph Hitler made a speech to the Viennese people from a balcony of the Hofburg Palace, in the background of the heroic statue of Archduke Karl. The crowd in the square Heldenplatz numbered several hundred thousand. Hitler's words on that day about the obligation he had to take care of the German-speaking people and the German population in Austria is eerily reminiscent when we look at the speech Vladimir Putin made as he announced the absorption of Crimea into Russia. I am not predicting we will have a World War III. I am predicting that unless we act and act vigorously--and a lot more than this legislation today--Vladimir Putin will be dramatically encouraged to take further aggressive actions, whether it be in Eastern Ukraine, whether it be Moldova, whether it be the Baltic countries, where he has already put significant pressures. Or will we send a message to Vladimir Putin that the cost of further aggression will not be matched with the benefit? Have no doubt about the ambitions of Vladimir Putin; that is, to restore the Russian Empire. All of the illusions we had about him should have finally been dispelled. He must be treated for what he is, a KGB colonel who repeatedly stated the worst thing that happened in the 20th century was the dismemberment of the then-Soviet Union. What Vladimir Putin understands is strength. In the words of Ronald Reagan, we can achieve ``peace through strength.'' This legislation is a good start. It is important we get it done as quickly as possible, but we have to understand he will never be our partner. He will always insist on being our adversary, and he will continue, if unchecked, to continue that vision of his expansion of the old Russian Empire. I predicted that Vladimir Putin would go into Ukraine because he could not give up the Sevastopol naval base and access to the Mediterranean. I do not know exactly what Vladimir Putin will do in Eastern Ukraine as we speak, but there has been a buildup of Russian forces on the border of Ukraine and Russia. This should disturb all of us. All of us should be disturbed. All of us should recognize that the kind of signal he gets in response to his latest aggression will, in many ways, dictate his future behavior in the coming days and weeks. There are many steps we need to take. We have to support Ukraine. We have to give them the economic assistance they need. We have to ensure that the March elections in Ukraine occur on time, freely, and fairly. We have to meet Ukraine's request for immediate military assistance. Military assistance is their first priority. What did this administration do in response to their plea for the ability to defend themselves? Send them MREs. That is the same thing we did in Syria. We now have an MRE doctrine; that when a country is under threat, such as Ukraine and other countries are, we send them MREs. We need to send them defensive weapons, which we should have done with Georgia back in the Bush administration when Vladimir Putin annexed South Ossetia and Abkhazia. His troops are there today. We have to give them the military assistance, short term, and a long- term military assistance program of training and equipping which, by the way, we do with about 50 other countries in the world. It is not a breakthrough. When my friends and colleagues in the administration say it would be provocative, what does it take to be further--the next time we provoke Vladimir Putin, is it going to be Alaska? We have to support countries such as Moldova and Georgia. Moldova is not a member of NATO. Transnistria is occupied by 1,500 Russian troops as we speak. We can see the same scenario taking place in Moldova as we have seen take place in Crimea. The Baltic countries are under pressure, and continuing and increasing pressure from Russia, particularly where the ``Russian-speaking'' population is, especially in Latvia and Estonia. We have to expand sanctions under the Magnitsky Act, increase sanctions against Putin's sources of power, especially for corruption, target corrupt people, push for an arms embargo against Russia, prevent defense technology transfers, use the upcoming NATO summit to enlarge the alliance, move the process for Georgia into a membership action plan, expand NATO cooperation with Ukraine, conduct significant contingency plans within NATO to deter aggression, defend alliance members, especially along the eastern flank, strategically shift NATO military assets eastward to support deterrence. All of these things and more need to be done. I wish to emphasize that does not mean American boots on the ground. I repeat. It does not mean American boots on the ground. So the response by some of my colleagues and those in the commentary community is that the American people do not want us to do it. Sixty-three percent of the American people say leave it alone. Sixty-one percent say do not get involved in any way. I understand that. There have been previous times in history where the American people did not want to be involved. Yet leaders stepped forward. Leaders explained to the American people why the United States has to be involved. I notice that the President's approval rating on the handling of foreign policy is sinking. I also understand the contradiction that over 60 percent of the American people do not want the United States engaged. That is because the American people have not been told what is at stake. Neville Chamberlain, in 1938, when talking about Czechoslovakia, said: We are not going to send our young men to a country that they do not speak our language and we do not know. Again, I am not predicting World War III, but I am predicting that Vladimir Putin will go as far as he thinks he can in order to realize his ambition, which he has stated on numerous occasions, to restore the Russian Empire. What does Vladimir Putin understand? Strong alliances, reprisals, consequences for misbehavior. That is what he would understand. This legislation before us, which I hope is passed 100 to 0, will indicate the first steps we are taking in response. I wish the President of the United States had not stated so clearly that we have now acquiesced to the absorption of Crimea into Ukraine. My message to the people of Ukraine is that in the Cold War it took a long time. But we will never give up. We will never give up in our efforts to see that their country is fully restored, as guaranteed by a solemn agreement when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons inventory. At the time they were the world's third largest nuclear power. In return for giving that up, their security and territory integrity, including Crimea, was maintained. There are other countries that may have nuclear weapons. What lesson do they take from this? Would Vladimir Putin have invaded Crimea if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons? That is an interesting question. So the point is that we have seen a blatant act of aggression. Sometimes I am astounded at the media reporting. An overwhelming majority, 96 percent, voted for Crimea to be part of Russia. My friends, 12 percent of the population of Ukraine are Tatars who were deported by Joseph Stalin; half of them killed, and they were allowed to come back. I can guarantee you there is no one in that 12 percent of the population who would ever vote to be part of Russia. It was a phony election. There were no observers. I know of a poll taken a few months ago that showed 53 percent of the people in Crimea wanted to be part of the Ukraine. But the point is, here today, I hope we are beginning a path to, one, recognizing Vladimir Putin for what he is and what his ambitions are; two, dedicating ourselves to supporting these countries, these fledgling democracies--it has not been that long since the end of the Cold War--to help them on the path as they move forward to democracy, particularly Ukraine, so we can help them rid that country of corruption, rid it of its dependency, long term, on energy supplies from Russia. We can, over a relatively short period of time, months if not years-- but probably months--arrange it so we can supply Ukraine and other European countries with energy to have them become independent of Russia. Finally, I have no illusions about what the Europeans are going to do. Very little, if anything. I have very little confidence in what this administration is going to do. So it is up to the Congress. It is up to us to act and to act decisively and send a clear message. By passing this bill today, hopefully with the House getting it done as quickly as possible, we send a message to the people of Ukraine: We stand with you. We will help you. We will do everything we can to see, over time, the restoration of your nation, as we have in times of old. We stand with you and we stand for freedom.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleagues. The American people should know exactly what has happened and what is happening now, and what may happen, unless we show a steadfast and robust response to the active aggression which has just taken place as Colonel Putin has moved and is aggressively using the force of arms, invaded a country and absorbed part of that country into Russia. A blatant act of aggression, sparked by the age- old practice of demonstrations and desire for intervention to protect Russian-speaking people has just been enacted by Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin's forces, I would say to my friend from South Carolina, as he knows, are on the border of Eastern Ukraine right now, and they are poised to invade. They even have forces in Belarus. Vladimir Putin is figuring out the cost-benefit ratio of moving into Eastern Ukraine, the cost-benefit ratio of moving into Moldova, which is not a member of NATO; of inciting the Russians there--there are 1,400 Russian troops stationed in Transnistria. He is figuring out the cost-benefit ratio of inciting violence in the Russian-speaking population of the Baltic countries, especially Estonia. Vladimir Putin is on the move. A fundamental and naive attitude toward Vladimir Putin by this President and this administration, I hope, is shattered for all time. Vladimir Putin is a KGB colonel who said the greatest mistake of the 20th century was to break up the Soviet Union. He is intent on restoring the Russian empire. That is what Vladimir Putin is all about. And what has been our response? Fascinating. The President of the United States, in his press conference yesterday, basically said, So what I announced and what the European Council announced was that we are consulting and putting in place the framework, the architecture for additional sanctions, additional costs should Russia take the next step. How does Vladimir Putin read that statement by the President of the United States? He reads it by saying, We got away with it. We got Crimea back. Both the Senator from South Carolina and I predicted he would not give up Sevastopol and he would invade if he felt it was necessary to do so. So that is where we are today. Does anybody believe that when the President of the United States says ``the architecture for additional sanctions, additional costs, should Russia take the next step''--how does Vladimir Putin interpret that statement? I wish to digress for a minute. There has been a lot of conversation about what the reaction was to Georgia and the invasion of Georgia and what the Bush administration did or did not do. I will let people judge what the Bush administration did or did not do. I will submit for the Record an opinion piece written by Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Joe Lieberman dated August 26, 2008, after the invasion by Vladimir Putin into Georgia at the conclusion of my remarks. At that time--this is 2008--Senator Lieberman and Senator Graham wrote: There is disturbing evidence Russia is already laying the groundwork to apply the same arguments used to justify its intervention in Georgia to other parts of its near abroad-- most ominously in Crimea. That is what Senator Graham and Senator Lieberman said 6 years ago. They went on: This strategically important peninsula is part of Ukraine, but with a large ethnic Russian population and the headquarters of Russia's Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol. Then Senator Lieberman and Senator Graham went on to argue for a much more robust response than the Bush administration gave: Specifically, the Georgian military should be given the antiaircraft and antiarmor systems necessary to deter any renewed Russian aggression. Our response to the invasion of Georgia must include regional actions to reassure Russia's rattled neighbors and strengthen trans-Atlantic solidarity. This means reinvigorating NATO as a military alliance. It goes on and on. Senator Lieberman and Senator Graham 6 years ago predicted this. I wonder what lesson this President took from that event and their predictions. The fact is--and it is with great sadness I tell my colleagues--we will hear a lot of rhetoric, there will be a lot of meetings, gatherings and conversations and threats about what needs to be done. But for a broad variety of reasons, which I do not have the time to go through, I predict to my colleagues now that the sanctions that are in place, which are for a handful of people, will be the extent of our reaction to the invasion of Crimea and the further violation of Ukrainian territory from the east. After Hitler invaded Austria in 1938, he gave a speech in Vienna, from the balcony of a hotel in Vienna. We should look back at that speech--and I will give more quotes from it. It is a carbon copy of what Vladimir Putin said about Crimea. Hitler said they had to go in and protect the German-speaking people and they had to do it with force of arms. But guess what. They were going to have a referendum. And they had--they used to call it plebiscites then--they had a referendum--a plebiscite--in Austria, and guess what. Ninety-six percent of the people voted that they wanted to be a part of Nazi Germany. This is an old playbook Vladimir Putin is operating from. So, tomorrow, fortunately, there is going to be a vote on some assistance to our beleaguered friends in Ukraine. I believe military assistance is a vital part of the assistance. I ask my friend from South Carolina: Isn't it true the first thing people need once they have been invaded, once part of their country has been taken over, is the ability to defend themselves? And isn't it a fact that the Ukrainian military, because of previous administrations, has been emasculated and they only have about 6,000 troops they can rely on? We just saw in Crimea their total inability to resist what the Russians did to their fleet and to their bases.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if I could interrupt to ask unanimous consent that the article entitled ``Russia's Aggression Is a Challenge to World Order'' by Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman, dated August 26, 2008, be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would like to make a couple additional points to my friend from South Carolina, and I notice the Senator from New Hampshire is here. In 1994, an agreement, a treaty was reached which divested Ukraine of the world's third largest nuclear inventory. In return for Ukraine turning over that inventory of nuclear weapons, there was a pledge made by Russia, the United States, and the British that they would respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Crimea. That was a part of the treaty. Obviously, Vladimir Putin violated that. The second point is, look, I have no illusions or worry about the long-term future of Russia. Russia is now a gas station masquerading as a country. Once we get the LNG and other energy to the European countries, it will dramatically reduce and eventually eliminate Vladimir Putin's influence because there is nothing but corruption and oligarchs in Russia today. One of the reasons Vladimir Putin wanted the Crimea and did not want Ukraine to be independent is because he was afraid this ``disease'' may spread to Russia. The Russian people are also sick and tired of the kleptocracy and the corruption. Finally, again we need--and we should have had in this legislation--a commitment to help export our excess energy to the Europeans so they then would be able to reduce their dependency--not just Ukraine but all of Europe on their dependency on Russian energy. So I have no doubt about the future of Russia. It will collapse like a house of cards. But in the short term, what Mr. Putin will do in committing further aggression--because this has raised his popularity dramatically at home. One of the most respected people whom Senator Graham and Senator Ayotte and I had to deal with over the years was Bob Gates. Mr. Gates served this country in a variety of posts, the latest of course being as an outstanding Secretary of Defense. This morning in the Wall Street Journal he wrote a piece called ``Putin's Challenge to the West.'' I am not going to read the whole thing. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. This is very important for all of our colleagues and the American people to know, and they do not have to take Senator Graham's and my word for it. Already we are accused of being partisan--politics stops at the water's edge, all of that baloney. When they cannot rebut the message, they shoot the messengers. This is former Secretary of Defense Gates: So far, however, the Western response has been anemic. Mr. Putin is little influenced by seizure of personal assets of his cronies or the oligarchs, or restrictions on their travel. Unilateral U.S. sanctions, save on Russian banks, will not be effective absent European cooperation. The gap between Western rhetoric and Western actions in response to out-and-out aggression is a yawning chasm. The message seems to be that if Mr. Putin doesn't move troops into eastern Ukraine, the West will impose no further sanctions or costs. De facto, Russia's seizure of Crimea will stand and, except for a handful of Russian officials, business will go on as usual. No one wants a new Cold War, much less a military confrontation. We want Russia to be a partner, but that is now self-evidently not possible under Mr. Putin's leadership. He has thrown down a gauntlet that is not limited to Crimea or even Ukraine. His actions challenge the entire post-Cold War order including, above all, the right of independent states to align themselves and do business with whomever they choose. Tacit acceptance of settling old revanchist scores by force is a formula for ongoing crises and potential armed conflict, whether in Europe, Asia or elsewhere. A China behaving with increasing aggressiveness in the East and South China seas, an Iran with nuclear aspirations and interventionist policies in the Middle East, and a volatile and unpredictable North Korea are all watching events in Europe. They have witnessed the fecklessness of the West in Syria. Similar division and weakness in responding to Russia's most recent aggression will, I fear, have dangerous consequences down the road. So we are not just even talking about Ukraine. We are not even talking about that part of Europe. We are talking about the lesson that bad people--whether they be Kim Jong Un or whether they be the Chinese who want to increase their influence in the South China Sea or whether they be the Iranians who continue to supply weapons to Hezbollah fighters to the fight in Syria, which the resistance is losing--in case you missed it, there was an interesting article this morning about how jihadists will establish a base in Syria with which to export terrorism throughout the Middle East and the world, including the United States of America. The President of the United States has to understand Vladimir Putin for what he is and what his ambitions are and what he will do. My friend from South Carolina and I are not sure what he will do now. But I think it is obvious, with his troops amassed on the boarder of Eastern Ukraine, he is contemplating further action. Whether he does so, I am not sure, but I think his calculation has to do with the cost- benefit ratio of further aggression against a sovereign nation. I see my colleague. Could I just make one more comment because my colleague was in Ukraine recently. These are wonderful people. All they want is what we have. They do not want to be part of Russia. They are tired of their corrupt dictator, Yanukovych, whom they had. They are willing to stand for weeks in freezing weather in Maidan--this huge square in Ukraine. Madam President, 110 of them were assassinated by snipers. Can't we at least give them some weapons with which to defend themselves and speak up for them, rather than saying ``additional costs should Russia take [the] next step.'' I yield for my colleague from New Hampshire.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague, and I appreciate his longstanding support for freedom and democracy throughout the world, but also for a very prescient piece that he and Senator Lieberman wrote 6 years ago predicting the likelihood of the events that we have just observed taking place. There is an article in the Washington Post: ``Three ways NATO can bolster Ukraine's security,'' by Ian Brzezinski. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. It goes on to say: These U.S. and alliance actions constitute a red line that depicts Kiev on the outside and on its own. This must be deeply disillusioning for Ukrainians who in recent months have so courageously expressed their desire for freedom and a place in Europe--and whose forces participated in a NATO collective defense exercise as recently as November. This red line can only reassure Vladimir Putin and his military planners, whose use of unmarked military personnel--and the plausible deniability they provided--in Crimea reflected at least initial concern about potential responses from the West. One of the more remarkable returns to the days of the Soviet Union was when Vladimir Putin had the press conference and was asked if those were Russian military in Crimea, and he said: Well, they can buy old uniforms from most any store in the region. He not only denied that Russian troops were there, but he added to the flat-out lie with a statement so ridiculous that he must have known that we knew that he was absolutely lying through his teeth. Let me just say to my colleagues what we need to do is we must recognize the reality that President Putin is not, and will never be, our partner. He will always insist on being our adversary and working to revise the entire post Cold War vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace--and the security architecture that supports it. Our policy must begin with the reality of what Vladimir Putin is, what his ambitions are, and what he is willing to do. We have to support Ukraine's emergence as a successful democracy with a thriving economy, fighting corruption, and with a strengthened national unity. We must ensure that the March elections in Ukraine occur on time, freely, and fairly. We must meet Ukraine's request for immediate military assistance as part of a larger, long-term initiative to help the Ukrainian armed forces rebuild and reform into an effective force that can deter aggression and defend their nation; support countries such as Moldova and Georgia in deepening democratic, economic, and military reforms that can hasten their integration into the Euro-Atlantic community; expand sanctions under the Magnitsky Act; increase targeted sanctions against Putin's sources of power, especially for corruption; push for an arms embargo against Russia; prevent defense technology transfers; use the upcoming NATO summit to enlarge the alliance; move Georgia into the Membership Action Plan; expand NATO cooperation with Ukraine; conduct significant contingency planning within NATO to deter aggression and defend alliance members, especially along the eastern flank; strategically shift NATO military assets eastward to support deterrence. We must take these actions. None of them, by the way, entail the commitment of American troops. I also want to make one additional comment. I hope that the Senator from New Hampshire would comment as well. Whenever I see a news story--no matter which network it is on-- the overwhelming majority of American people do not want to have anything to do with Syria. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not want to have anything to do with Ukraine. We do not even want to assist the people of Ukraine. We do not want to assist the people of Syria that are fighting and struggling--140,000 of whom have been slaughtered already in the most atrocious fashion. I say to my colleagues and to the American people: We cannot ignore the lessons of history. We cannot revert to the 1930s when isolationist impetus in this country kept us out of being prepared for a conflict. If it had not been for Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the actions he took in the late 1930s, we would have had an even worse time after Pearl Harbor. It is up to the President of the United States to inform the American people of what our vital national security interests are. That does not mean involvement in another war. But we cannot leave the world because the world will not leave us. So the President of the United States--rather than announcing that if the Russians go any further there will be punishment for it, the President of the United States needs to go before the American people and say: Here is what we are facing. We are facing what Senator Graham just talked about: the rise of Al Qaeda across the Middle East; the failure in Syria, which is now becoming a breeding ground for Islamic extremism; the Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea; the Iranian talks which are ``failing;'' and of course this latest and most outrageous aggression committed by Vladimir Putin. The world is a dangerous place. It cries out for American leadership. As Lindsey Graham said, there was a guy, in the words of Margaret Thatcher, who won the Cold War without firing a shot. It is called peace through strength. It is through being steadfast. Right now, when the Chinese announced that they are increasing their defense spending by 12.2 percent, we are announcing that we are cutting our defense dramatically. That is a long series of cuts in defense, which can put this Nation's national security interests further in danger. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for going to Kiev. It is an uplifting and wonderful experience to see how much they want to be like us, how much they appreciate what little we do, how much it matters to them to be able to be part of Europe and free, and to have an economic system that is not beset with the corruption and kleptocracy that devastated their economy. They need our help. I hope tomorrow we will be passing legislation which will be the first step in providing that assistance to this Nation. I say to my colleagues, the people of Ukraine will be watching us. They are watching what we do. The sooner we guarantee $1 billion of loan guarantees to them, the sooner we impose these sanctions which are embodied in this bill in a bipartisan fashion, the better it will be for the people of Ukraine to know that we stand with them.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry: What is the business before the Senate?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. I urge my colleagues to not only vote for this particular measure but also to vote to pass as soon as possible the bill before the Senate that was reported out by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, by a vote of 14 to 4, before we went into recess. Obviously, it is intended to be an opening response--a beginning response--to the Russian aggression in Ukraine; specifically now occupying and absorbing Crimea into Russia, an act of aggression the likes of which has not been seen in a long time. In addition, now additional pressures are being put on the Ukrainian Government as we speak, such as raising the price of gas, canceling Ukraine special price discounts. Also, oil deliveries are slow, border crossings for the delivery of trade have been closed, and the dirty tricks go on from the old KGB colonel Vladimir Putin. This act is relatively mild. It will provide loan guarantees which are badly needed. Now the Ukrainian economy is under even greater pressure and greater difficulty, given the actions taken by Vladimir Putin, and it would stabilize the Ukrainian economy. It is just a beginning, but it is a strong signal of support by the United States for this fledgling Ukrainian democracy. The IMF reforms are considered somewhat controversial by some of my colleagues, but the IMF reforms are not the reason this legislation is before us. The reason the legislation is before us is because Vladimir Putin has now absorbed Crimea into Russia. I predicted that when the Ukrainian Government became a government of the people and threw out Yanukovych, Putin would do exactly that because of his view of the need to have Sevastopol, the base on the Black Sea, in order to have access to the Mediterranean, without which his visions and view of the Russian empire would be threatened. Right now the President of the United States is in Europe. I hope he is leading in Europe rather than just consulting in Europe. By the way, a comment by the President--I still don't quite get it--that there would not be a military excursion in Ukraine--I have never heard that word used in regard to military action. But the most important thing, in my view, is to pass this legislation as soon as possible. We can fight about other less important issues later on. We need to send a strong signal to the people of Ukraine who are watching us as we speak and as we vote today, as to whether we are going to come to their assistance and at least take some small measures to punish Vladimir Putin. If we get hung up for another week or another who knows how many hours because of our failure to act, in my view, it sends exactly the wrong signals. I also speak again in the strongest terms that we need to send military assistance to this country. We need to help them defend themselves. Russian troops are amassed on the border of Eastern Ukraine as we speak. I don't know whether Vladimir Putin will go into Eastern Ukraine. I did predict he would go into Crimea. Now I believe he is watching carefully for the reaction of the West, led by the United States of America, as to how we are going to assist Ukraine, how we are going to prevent or at least make the cost of further encroachment into Ukrainian territory a very expensive one. We have military assistance programs with a myriad of nations, and we should be giving them the weapons they need to defend themselves. I am talking about defensive weaponry. It is shameful for us not to do so. I see my colleague from Illinois with whom I was privileged and proud to travel to Ukraine, a man who understands these issues as well or better than anyone in this body and one who represents thousands and thousands and thousands of Ukrainian Americans whom I know he has met with and who are deeply concerned.

Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask my friend: Isn't it true the people of Ukraine are watching in a way that is hard for them to understand--before an empty Chamber. But, more importantly, whether we act and act quickly, that signal to them as they face this additional Russian aggression, maybe not military aggression but already borders have been closed, the price of their energy has been raised--in other words, Putin is putting more and more pressure on them. They look to us. Isn't it a fact they will not quite understand if we go another several days because of some additional issue that does not affect whether we are coming to their assistance, I ask my friend.