John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I note the presence of the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee whom I wish to thank for his rapid leadership in getting this legislation approved by an overwhelming majority of the committee on a bipartisan basis. I know he is waiting to speak. I have just one more comment for my friend from Illinois. I understand he just met with Ukrainian Americans in Chicago, in his home State of Illinois. Isn't it true they don't quite understand why we have not acted more rapidly in the face of naked aggression--which is incredible acquisition of territory which the Russian Government guaranteed as part of Ukraine when Ukraine gave up its nuclear inventory, which happened to be the third largest in the world. I see the chairman waiting, so I will not ask any more questions, except to urge my colleagues let's have an overwhelming vote to move to this legislation and get it done as quickly as possible.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. I think it is very clear that Vladimir Putin has amassed forces on the border of Russia and eastern Ukraine, and right now he is calculating as to whether to move there or even into Moldova, where the Transnistrian region is now occupied and has been by Russian troops. Also, there is pressure on the Baltic countries that is being exerted as we speak, a lot of it in defense of ``Russian-speaking people.'' If we do not send this message now, with this package, in a bipartisan and strong manner, Vladimir Putin will be encouraged to enact further acts of aggression against Crimea and in the region. I would ask my colleague if he does not agree with that assessment.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairman for his eloquent statement. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object--I will not object--Madam President, the majority leader has asked that we move and pass this legislation which was considered in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It was open for amendment. Several amendments were adopted. Several were rejected. By a vote of 14 to 3, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported out this bill. Why should we care about this legislation? I will try to be as brief as possible, but I urge my colleagues' attention to the latest New York Times report today: ``Russia Massing Military Forces Near Border With Ukraine.'' Russian forces are massing near the border with Ukraine. Airborne; ground capabilities; the parachute drop was on a scale not seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union; the units involved artillery batteries, assault helicopters, and at least 10,000 soldiers. In other words, right now as we speak, Vladimir Putin is either planning on or contemplating an invasion of eastern Ukraine. We have seen the movie before: provocateurs, people having to come and restore order, and there is no order, so then we see military intervention, and then there is going to be another referendum such as is supposed to take place on Sunday in the Crimea, which I predict 80 percent of the vote will do so when that is clearly not what the will of the people of Crimea is. So, incredibly, incredibly, there will be an objection from this side to this legislation when the people of the Ukraine are crying out for our help and our assistance. My friend Senator Barrasso will now be proposing the House bill that has not one single sanction in it--not one sanction. I am surprised that the Senator would want to propose a bill that does not have any punishment for the Russians for what they are doing right now. Then another one of my colleagues will probably come out and object to us taking up and passing the bill that was put through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--open to amendments--in a process that could not be criticized by anyone. So what is the message we are sending to the Ukrainian people? What is the message we are sending them? That we have a problem with a fix for the IMF. Then also there are some who are demanding changes in the regulation by the Treasury Department concerning campaign contributions. What has happened? Where are our priorities? Is the IMF--no matter whether it is fixed or not fixed with this legislation--more important than the lives of thousands of people? Is that what we are talking about? You know, I will say to my friends who are objecting to this--and there are a number of them on my side--you can call yourself Republicans--that is fine--because that is on your voter registration. Do not call yourself Reagan Republicans. Ronald Reagan would never-- would never--let this kind of aggression go unresponded to by the American people. We are not talking about troops on the ground. We are talking about responses that impose sanctions and punishment for Vladimir Putin, who clearly has said that his goal--the greatest disaster of the 20th century was the dissolution, the collapse of the then-Soviet Union. We know what Vladimir Putin is all about. We know what he understands. So now because of an IMF fix or a campaign finance fix, we are now going to reject a piece of legislation that was done on a bipartisan basis with the leadership of the chairman, whom I see on the floor, of which I am proud, and with the ranking member, Senator Corker of Tennessee. We are going to say no. Do you know what the most ridiculous thing about all of this is? That the majority leader has filed cloture. We have well over 60 votes. So we are going to be back in about 11 or 12 days, whatever it is, and cloture will have expired. We have well over 60 votes. We will pass this. Instead, our signal to the people of Ukraine today, as Russian military forces are massing on their border: Wait a minute. It is more important that we get our campaign finance regulations fixed. It is more important that we have the IMF fix as a higher priority than the lives of the men and women in the Ukraine. I have been embarrassed before on the floor of the Senate, I will tell the Presiding Officer, but I have not been embarrassed this way about Members of my own party. One of the proudest aspects I have always felt of our Republican Party and the leadership of Ronald Reagan is we stood up for people. We stood up for people when the Iron Curtain was there. We stood up for Natan Sharansky. We said, ``Tear down this wall.'' Now we have a guy who is trying to reinstate the old Russian Empire, which he has said himself, and what are we saying? No. A shameful day. I will not object.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President.

Mr. McCAIN. I know the Senator from Alabama wants to speak, and I assure him I will not remain on the floor to hear it because I know what the Senator from Alabama is going to say that has something to do with paying for it out of defense spending. I will match my record with the Senator from Alabama on defense spending anytime, day or night. The fact is, this money is taken out of programs that were already canceled and were going to be returned to the Treasury. If they had been used for defense, then it would have busted the budget agreement the Senator from Alabama has so stoutly defended time after time. So in a bit of preemption of the Senator from Alabama, his argument is wrong that this is taking money out of defense. He is dead wrong. So all I would say to my colleagues is that the Senator from Wyoming came down and wants us to take up and pass a bill passed by the House of Representatives which has not a single binding sanction in it--not one. Not one binding sanction in it. Not one strong message to the people of Ukraine that we are supporting them. Russia's defense ministry announced: New military operations in several regions near the Ukrainian border on Thursday. Even as Chancellor Angela Merkel warned the operations came as Ukraine's Acting President Oleksandr V. Turchynov--the Acting President of the Ukraine was quoted by Ukrainian news media as saying Russian forces amassed near the border were ready to invade. So we now have Russian forces ready to invade a sovereign nation, and what are we talking about? An IMF fix. Suppose the Senator from Alabama was right and this sum of money is being taken out of national defense. How much money are we going to have to spend on national defense if Vladimir Putin goes unchecked throughout Europe? The next target, by the way, will be the Baltic countries because they have Russian speaking populations as well, and we may have to have provocations there; Moldova, where Russia occupies Transnistria; Georgia, where Russia occupies Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But what are we arguing about? Whether the IMF fix is appropriate or not. What are we arguing about? Whether it is in dispute as to whether this is actually some reduction in defense spending. Where in the world are our priorities? Where in the world is our sympathy and our concern and our need to support the people of Ukraine in this hour of need? I don't want to go on too long, but the issue of natural gas, we all know that is the way out of it long term. Does anybody think including a provision on natural gas is going to have any effect whatsoever on events that are now happening and will happen in the next few days? Of course not. I am a strong supporter of getting natural gas to these countries, but it is not going to happen in the next days, weeks, months or maybe even years. So to use that is an excuse, of course, again. I have watched in the last few months two fool's errands. One was when we shut down the government. We were all so proud we shut down the government, turned away 600,000 people from our national parks, took $27 million out of the economy of my State on a fool's errand that was not going to succeed. Now we see another fool's errand because the majority leader will file cloture and there will be well over 60 votes, and 10 or 11 or however many days from now we will pass it and these sanctions will be enacted. In the meantime--in the meantime--the first message to the people of Ukraine, who have Russians--in the view of the Ukrainian President-- ready to invade, is that we are telling them no, because we don't agree with an IMF fix or we think the money may be or may not be coming out of defense.

Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Connecticut. I say if we take up and pass the House bill, it does one thing: It gives them loan guarantees for $1 billion. There is not one other single binding provision in the House bill which my colleague from Wyoming wanted to take up and pass, instead of this bill, which went through the committee--with the input, by the way, of the administration. There is bipartisan and administration cooperation on it. I urge my colleagues to read the provisions of this bill. They are tough. They are tough, enforceable provisions which will make Vladimir Putin and his kleptocratic oligarchy uncomfortable. And, by the way, one of the reasons why Vladimir Putin is doing what he is doing is he is afraid a free, independent, and noncorrupt Ukraine on his border might send a message to the Russian people who are sick and tired of him anyway. Sanctions on persons in the Russian Federation, complicit in or responsible for significant corruption, are a major provision of this bill; Sanctions on persons responsible for violence or undermining the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine. There are many other provisions in this bill which are binding which will make life very uncomfortable. Instead, my dear friend--and he is my dear friend--from Wyoming wants to take up and pass a bill which has one thing, and one thing only, and that is a $1 billion loan guarantee. By the way, the EU has just given them $15 billion. So all I can say is we will pass this legislation, and we will go and we will assure our Ukrainian friends that this bill will be passed and we will act. I hope people at home who know Ukraine and know the people of Ukraine and know the friends and relatives and others will make it known to their elected representatives that for us to sit by and not help these people would be writing a disgraceful chapter in American history. I thank my colleague.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am please to introduce legislation that would reauthorize the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area located in Yuma, AZ. A companion bill is being introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Raul Grijalva and Congressman Ed Pastor from Arizona. The Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area is a unique success story in the National Heritage Areas, NHA, system. It was first authorized in 2000 under legislation sponsored by myself and former Senator Jon Kyl, P.L. 106-319. Yuma Crossing NHA has proven to be a central component in a collaborative effort by local, tribal and federal partners to transform the City of Yuma downtown riverfront area and restore riparian habitat along the banks of the Colorado River. Like many other NHAs, it was established as a means of encouraging historic preservation at a local level without assigning large federal resources for the management of land as a National Park. The Yuma Crossing NHA model continues to involve a broad coalition of local businesses, farmers, and the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation among others. Yuma Crossing NHA was the first NHA to be established west of the Mississippi River. Its purpose is to preserve and share the history of the Yuma Crossing, which is a narrow granite outcropping on the Colorado River that for centuries served as the only transportation gateway for those traveling west to California, including Spanish missionaries, American pioneers, and gold rush prospectors. Prior to the completion of the transcontinental railroad in the 1860's, if you wanted to trade or travel to California, you had to go through Yuma Crossing. The NHA designation has enabled the City of Yuma to develop plans to leverage about $80 million in private investments, not Federal funding, for the revitalization of downtown Yuma and the historic landmark. The Yuma Crossing NHA also played a critical role in saving a former Arizona State Park unit, the historic Yuma Quartermaster Depot, which had closed and fallen into disrepair due to state budget cuts. Moreover, the Yuma Crossing NHA has led the way in a remarkable environmental project along the Colorado River known as the Yuma East Wetlands project, which aims to remove 1,400 acres of non-native, water-guzzling salt cedar thickets and re-vegetate the area with native willows, cottonwood, and mesquite trees. The 400 acres completed thus far has aided in the initial recovery of a number of endangered and migratory bird species, including the Yuma clapper rail, the yellow- billed cuckoo, and the southwestern willow flycatcher. As a testament to its successes, the National Park Service has downgraded the Yuma Crossing historic landmark from Threatened to Watch status. However, more work remains to be done. For example, the Yuma East Wetlands project has secured a funding commitment from non-federal parties for the next fifty years. Because NHA's have an authorization period of 15 years, it's critical that Congress reauthorize the Yuma Crossing NHA before the end of Fiscal Year 2015 so that this effort continues uninterrupted. I understand there may be a need to offset the federal spending that's authorized by this legislation, and I hope to address this concern as the bill advances through the legislative process. I encourage my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am please to introduce legislation that would reauthorize the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area located in Yuma, AZ. A companion bill is being introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Raul Grijalva and Congressman Ed Pastor from Arizona. The Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area is a unique success story in the National Heritage Areas, NHA, system. It was first authorized in 2000 under legislation sponsored by myself and former Senator Jon Kyl, P.L. 106-319. Yuma Crossing NHA has proven to be a central component in a collaborative effort by local, tribal and federal partners to transform the City of Yuma downtown riverfront area and restore riparian habitat along the banks of the Colorado River. Like many other NHAs, it was established as a means of encouraging historic preservation at a local level without assigning large federal resources for the management of land as a National Park. The Yuma Crossing NHA model continues to involve a broad coalition of local businesses, farmers, and the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation among others. Yuma Crossing NHA was the first NHA to be established west of the Mississippi River. Its purpose is to preserve and share the history of the Yuma Crossing, which is a narrow granite outcropping on the Colorado River that for centuries served as the only transportation gateway for those traveling west to California, including Spanish missionaries, American pioneers, and gold rush prospectors. Prior to the completion of the transcontinental railroad in the 1860's, if you wanted to trade or travel to California, you had to go through Yuma Crossing. The NHA designation has enabled the City of Yuma to develop plans to leverage about $80 million in private investments, not Federal funding, for the revitalization of downtown Yuma and the historic landmark. The Yuma Crossing NHA also played a critical role in saving a former Arizona State Park unit, the historic Yuma Quartermaster Depot, which had closed and fallen into disrepair due to state budget cuts. Moreover, the Yuma Crossing NHA has led the way in a remarkable environmental project along the Colorado River known as the Yuma East Wetlands project, which aims to remove 1,400 acres of non-native, water-guzzling salt cedar thickets and re-vegetate the area with native willows, cottonwood, and mesquite trees. The 400 acres completed thus far has aided in the initial recovery of a number of endangered and migratory bird species, including the Yuma clapper rail, the yellow- billed cuckoo, and the southwestern willow flycatcher. As a testament to its successes, the National Park Service has downgraded the Yuma Crossing historic landmark from Threatened to Watch status. However, more work remains to be done. For example, the Yuma East Wetlands project has secured a funding commitment from non-federal parties for the next fifty years. Because NHA's have an authorization period of 15 years, it's critical that Congress reauthorize the Yuma Crossing NHA before the end of Fiscal Year 2015 so that this effort continues uninterrupted. I understand there may be a need to offset the federal spending that's authorized by this legislation, and I hope to address this concern as the bill advances through the legislative process. I encourage my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, had I been here yesterday, I would have voted for S. 1917, the Victims Protection Act of 2014. This important bill would increase protections for victims of sexual assault in the Armed Forces, while retaining commanders' authority to convene courts martial. Every allegation, every anecdote, and every instance of sexual assault in our military is unacceptable. An important debate has been taking place in Congress and among our Armed Forces, and I am grateful that we aren't sitting idly by while this problem claims more victims and threatens the integrity and effectiveness of our Nation's military. We have heard from the victims, and we have recognized that change was needed to protect victims and hold perpetrators accountable. With that knowledge, Congress included over 30 reforms in last year's national defense authorization Act, NDAA, including removing the ability of commanders to overturn jury convictions; requiring review of decisions not to refer charges; criminalizing retaliation against victims; and providing special victims' counsel to victims of sexual assault to support and assist them through all proceedings. The Armed Forces have also instituted major reforms and worked hard to improve the reporting climate for victims. As a result, the Marine Corps, for example, has seen a large increase in sexual assault reporting since initiating a sexual assault prevention and response campaign last year. I supported the NDAA reforms as well as the measure the Senate passed yesterday. We should give these reforms the opportunity to work before enacting any change that would take the matter out of the chain of command. Some very strong voices agree. First, according to a congressionally mandated independent panel that examined the role of the commander reported definitively that it would be a mistake to remove the chain of command's authority to convene courts martial. That panel, called the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel, also found that removing courts-martial authority would not reduce the incidence of sexual assault, increase reporting of sexual assaults, improve the quality of prosecutions, increase the conviction rate, increase confidence among victims about the fairness of the military justice system, or reduce concerns about potential retaliation. The independent panel also examined our allies' military justice systems in Israel, the UK, Australia, and Canada for comparison and concluded that none of the improvements they witnessed in the reporting of sexual assault in their militaries were connected to the role of the commander. The panel also found that there was no evidence that removing the commander from the decisionmaking process increased reporting of incidences of sexual assault. Second, Vice Admiral DeRenzi, Judge Advocate General in the U.S. Navy, has spoken eloquently about the issue and underscored the essential role of the commander in solving the problem in testimony before SASC and before the Response Systems Panel. I encourage everyone to read her full testimony before these panels. In addition to urging Congress to retain commanders' authority, it details major reforms implemented in the Navy in the past 3 years and demonstrates the Navy's commitment to eradicating sexual assault from their ranks. I would like to highlight some of her statements for the record. In her testimony, Admiral DeRenzi said: ``Beyond the immeasurable toll on individual victims, sexual assault is an existential threat to our core values and directly impacts operational readiness and unit cohesion. This is rightfully recognized as a leadership issue, not merely a legal issue. Exemplifying this commitment, the Navy implemented a multi-faceted, commander driven approach to address awareness and training, prevention, victim response, and accountability.'' ``Permanent, effective change must be implemented through our commanders.'' ``Additionally, any legislation must retain the commander's authority over his or her Sailors. Commanders are responsible and accountable for the safety, health and welfare of their people; commanders must have authority commensurate with this responsibility, and that includes the authority to maintain good order and discipline.'' My commitment to taking decisive action when necessary to ensure the security and success of our men and women in uniform had me support the reforms in the most recent NDAA and support Senator McCaskill's bill. Taken together, these reforms meaningfully will change how our Armed Forces address the scourge of military sexual assaults, but they do so in a way that recognizes the unique purpose of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and ensures that our commanders have the tools they need to facilitate that much needed, long-overdue change.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Missouri. I want to profusely thank her and Senator Ayotte and Senator Fischer for their leadership on this very difficult and emotional issue which obviously is very unpleasant and very controversial and understandably so. We are talking about the livelihood, the right to function as members of the military, of women in the military. It is a vital issue because there should be no organization that is at the level of the United States military for providing an equal opportunity and equal protection under the law than the United States military. When these young men and women join the military, they do something very unique; that is, they are willing to put their lives on the line for the defense of this country. Therefore, because of this unique aspect of their lives, that they are willing to serve for the benefit of the rest of us, there is also the responsibility of those who command them. That is unique as well. Those who command in the military may have to make the toughest decision of all and to send these young people into harm's way. No other--no other--person in American society, outside of the President of the United States, has that responsibility. So what we are really talking about today here is, will we hold those commanders responsible for anything that happens within their command or will we take that responsibility and shift it over to a lawyer? That is what this is really all about. Right now we have units operating in Afghanistan. Frankly, according to the Gillibrand proposal, if there was a charge, we may have to try to find some way to fly a lawyer in. I do not think that is either likely or agreeable. But the major point here is that we hold commanders responsible for what happens under their command. If they do not carry out those duties, then we relieve them of that command. If they are responsible for egregious conduct, we prosecute them. I have had the great honor of command. I have had the great honor of commanding, at that time, the largest squadron in the U.S. Navy, some 1,000 people. There were a large number of women in that organization, even then, because it was a shore-based squadron. Now we have women throughout--I am happy to say--throughout the military, including combat roles. I can tell you that in those days we had severe racial problems in the United States military. We had race riots on aircraft carriers. We held commanders responsible. We punished those who practiced discrimination. We had people in our chain of command that alerted and were responsible for the indoctrination and the good conduct of people who in any way showed a taint of discrimination. I am happy to say that I believe that the greatest equal opportunity organization in America today is the United States military. We can do that with this severe and difficult and emotional issue of sexual assaults in the military. The exact wrong way to do that is to make the commanding officer less responsible because if you take the responsibility from that commanding officer, then you are eroding his ability to lead and, I would argue, their ability to fight. We have the finest commanders in our military. We have the finest men and women who are serving in the military. We are the best military in the world. There is a reason for it. As we bring people up the ladder of promotion to positions of command, they are tested time after time. I trust these commanders. I trust them. With the provisions in the McCaskill bill as we have today, we will preserve that command authority, but we will also have significant increases in oversight and accountability. But to take away that responsibility from the men and women who command these people, these outstanding men and women, and give to it a lawyer is not the way to go. I hope my colleagues understand it. I also would ask one other thing before this vote. If any of my colleagues knows a member of the military whom they respect, call them. Call them and ask them whether they would think this proposal of the Senator from New York is in any way helpful to the good functioning of the military and the elimination of sexual assaults. We share the same goal. There are vastly different ways to achieve that goal. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I yield back.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague from Connecticut for his thoughtful remarks on events taking place and the tragedies taking place in Ukraine as we speak. I appreciate his commitment to trying to find a way through this very difficult situation. The Senator is dead wrong when he says this is similar to Georgia. In fact, this Senator wanted to do a lot more than we did. In fact, we did a lot more. The fundamental problem, I say to my friend from Connecticut, is that this President does not understand Vladimir Putin. He does not understand his ambitions. He does not understand that Vladimir Putin is an old KGB colonel bent on restoration of the Russian empire. It was Vladimir Putin who said: The greatest catastrophe of the 20th century was the downfall of the Soviet Union. The Senator from Connecticut should understand that. This President has never understood this. This President is the one who ridiculed Mitt Romney when Mitt Romney said our great enemy was Russia and its geopolitical threats. This President said the Cold War has been over for 20 years. This President believes the Cold War is over, but Vladimir Putin doesn't believe the Cold War is over. When the President of the United States is overheard to say to Mr. Putin's puppet, Mr. Medvedev: Tell Vladimir that after I am reelected I will be more flexible. Did you get that? The President said: Tell Vladimir after I am reelected I will be more flexible. This is the same President who believed that somehow Vladimir Putin had anything but the ambitions which he is now realizing in Ukraine. In fact, I think it might be interesting for my colleagues to note that Vladimir Putin spoke to the press today and Vladimir Putin, among other things, during his answering questions from the press, said: First of all, my assessment of what happened in Kiev and in Ukraine in general. There can only be one assessment: this was an anti-constitutional takeover, an armed seizure of power. That was Vladimir Putin's view of what happened in Kiev as Yanukovych slaughtered, I believe, 82 innocent civilians as well as wounding hundreds. Then he goes on to say: I would like to stress that under that agreement Mr. Yanukovych actually handed over power. Obviously, Yanukovych did not hand over power. He was driven from power by the good people who were tired of his corruption and were sick of his nepotism and his crony capitalism. Anybody who believes anything good about Mr. Yanukovych should see the pictures of the home he had and the dacha he was building that cost hundreds of millions of dollars--truly a man of the people. President Putin went on to say: The current acting president [of Ukraine] is definitely not legitimate. There is only one legitimate president, from a legal standpoint. . . . Yanukovych is the only undoubtedly legitimate President. Then comes more interesting things. Vladimir Putin now says: Now about financial aid to Crimea. As you know, we have decided to organize work in the Russian regions to aid Crimea, which has turned to us for humanitarian support. We will provide it, of course. I cannot say how much, when or how. The government is working on this by bringing together the regions bordering on Crimea by providing additional support to our regions so they can help the people in Crimea. We will do it, of course. Regarding the deployment of troops, the use of armed forces, so far there is no need for it, but the possibility remains. Let me repeat that. This is from today. Vladimir Putin said: Regarding the deployment of troops, the use of armed forces, so far there is no need for it, but the possibility remains. This is a return to the old Russian Soviet doublespeak which was absolute nonsense, but they said it anyway. He goes on to say: What is our biggest concern? We see the rampage of reactionary forces, nationalist and anti-Semitic forces going on in certain parts of Ukraine, including Kiev. . . . When we see this, we understand what worries the citizens of Ukraine, both Russian and Ukrainian, and the Russian-speaking population in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine. It is this uncontrolled crime that worries them. Therefore, if we see such uncontrolled crime spreading to the eastern regions of the country-- We should pay careful attention to these words of Mr. Putin-- if we see such uncontrolled crime spreading to the eastern regions of the country, and if the people ask us for help, while we already have the official request from the legitimate President, we retain the right to use all available means to protect those people. We believe this would be absolutely legitimate. Then he goes on to say, in answer to a question: Thus the tension in Crimea that was linked to the possibility of using our Armed Forces simply died down and there was no need to use them. I repeat: Thus the tension in Crimea that was linked to the possibility of using our Armed Forces simply died down and there was no need to use them. The only something we had to do, and we did it, was to enhance the defense of our military facilities because they were constantly receiving threats and we were aware of the armed nationalists moving in. Russia has well trained, well equipped now an additional 16,000 or more, and Vladimir Putin was worried about enhancing the defense of his military facilities because they were constantly receiving threats. He goes on to say: There is something I would like to stress, however. Obviously, what I am going to say now is not within my authority and we do not intend to interfere. However, we firmly believe all citizens of Ukraine, I repeat, wherever they live, should be given the same equal right to participate in the life of their country and determining its future. My friends, we are seeing justification for intervention and serious intervention in eastern Ukraine. So the article goes on with further questions, and he goes on to take a shot at the United States saying: Our partners, especially in the United States, always clearly formulate their own geopolitical and state interests and follow them with persistence. Then, using the principle ``You're either with us or against us'' they draw the whole world in. And those who do not join in get ``beaten'' until they do. Then he goes on to say: Our approach is different. We proceed from the conviction that we always act legitimately. I have personally-- I say to my colleagues, I am not making this up. This is what Vladimir Putin said-- I have always been an advocate of acting in compliance with international law. I would like to stress yet again that if we do make the decision, if I do decide to use the Armed Forces, this will be a legitimate decision in full compliance with both general norms of international law, since we have the appeal of the legitimate President, and with our commitments, which in this case coincide with our interest to protect the people with whom we have close historical cultural and economic ties. Protecting these people is in our national interests. This is a humanitarian mission. We do not intend to subjugate anyone or to dictate to anyone. However, we cannot remain indifferent if we see they are being persecuted, destroyed and humiliated. Here is probably the most interesting part: Question: Mr. President, a clarification, if I may. The people who were blocking the Ukrainian Army units in Crimea were wearing uniforms that strongly resembled the Russian Army uniform. Were those Russian soldiers, Russian military? Vladimir Putin: Why don't you take a look at the post- Soviet states. There are many military uniforms there that are similar. You can go to a store and buy any kind of uniform. Question: But were they Russian soldiers or not? Vladimir Putin: Those were local self-defence units. Question: How well trained are they? If we compare them to the self-defence units in Kiev . . . Vladimir Putin: My dear colleague, look how well trained the people who operated in Kiev were. As we all know they were trained at special bases in neighboring states: in Lithuania, Poland and in Ukraine itself too. They were trained by instructors for extended periods. They were divided into dozens and hundreds, their actions were coordinated, they had good communication systems. It was all like clockwork. Did you see them in action? They looked very professional, like special forces. Why do you think those in Crimea should be any worse? Question: In that case, can I specify: did we take part in training Crimea self-defence forces? Vladimir Putin: No, we did not. This is the same guy the President of the United States pushed the reset button for time and again. This is the same guy whom the President says we can work with--Vladimir Putin. Then my colleague and former Member of this body on Friday--on Friday, as Putin's forces moved into Crimea, and it was very clear to anyone the Russians were moving in--Secretary of State John F. Kerry spoke Friday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. This is a quote from Secretary Kerry. We raised the issue of the airports, raised the issue of armored vehicles, raised the issue of personnel in various places. While we were told they are not engaging in any violation of the sovereignty, and do not intend to, I nevertheless made it clear that could be misinterpreted at this moment and that there are enough tensions that it is important for everybody to be extremely careful not to inflame the situation and not to send the wrong messages. I am not making that up. So after 5 years of believing that somehow Vladimir Putin was anything but what he is, we are now paying the piper. The chickens are coming home to roost. Do we have a military option? No. But we do have a number of other options. I wish to read one other article that was in USA Today by Jonah Goldberg entitled ``Obama In Denial on Russia.'' I will not go through a lot of it, about student Obama, but here is some of the quote from the article: In 1983, then-Columbia University student Obama penned a lengthy article for the school magazine placing the blame for U.S.-Soviet tensions largely on America's ``war mentality'' and the ``twisted logic'' of the Cold War. President Reagan's defense buildup, according to Obama, contributed to the ``silent spread of militarism'' and reflected our ``distorted national priorities'' rather than what should be our goal: a ``nuclear free world.'' That is what student Obama said. But the remarkable thing is 2 weeks ago in response to tensions in Ukraine, the President explained that: Our approach . . . is not to see (events in Ukraine) as some Cold War chessboard in which we're in competition with Russia. This is a horrible way to talk about the Cold War because it starts from the premise that it all was just a game conducted between two morally equivalent competitors. Similar comments about Cold War rivalries and the like are commonplace of late, especially during the Sochi Olympics, when NBC commentators were desperate to portray the entire Soviet chapter as nothing more than a pivotal experience. America surely made mistakes during the near half-century twilight struggle. The fact is there was a right side and a wrong side to that conflict and we were on the right side of it. The Soviet Union, of which Vladimir Putin was a part, murdered millions of its own people, stifled freedom in nearly every forum, enslaved whole nations, and actively tried to undermine democracy all around the world, including in the United States.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. President Putin, a former KGB agent, has said the collapse of the ``evil empire'' was ``the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.'' This alone should have been a clue to this White House that misspelled reset buttons weren't going to cut it. But they were too stuck in the past to see it. I could go on and on, including the ridicule some of us were subjected to when we pointed this out from time to time, including in 2008 when I said in a debate with then-candidate Obama: Watch Ukraine. Watch Ukraine. Putin will not give up Ukraine. We need to have an economic aid package immediately, and I am glad our Secretary of State is over there with initial U.S. loan guarantees, joining the EU, and a longer substitute package through the International Monetary Fund. We have to stabilize the economy of Ukraine which is near collapse. Financial sanctions, freezing assets, visa bans, trade embargoes--all of those can be accomplished, particularly expansion of the Magnitsky act, so people who are responsible will not have bank accounts, they will not travel, they will not ever get a visa. They need to pay a penalty for orchestrating what is happening in Ukraine right now. Obviously we should not go to the G-8 summit. He should be thrown out of the G-8. It should now be the G-7. They obviously have to suspend military-to-military engagements. We need to have a path--and a quick one--for both Moldova and Georgia to move into NATO. Both countries are occupied by Russian troops, Moldova in Transnistria and in Georgia at Kajian South Abkhazia, and quite often Russians keep moving the fence farther and farther into the sovereign territory of these countries. In an attempt to appease Mr. Putin, we abandoned missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. We need to reinstate those and move forward as quickly as possible. There are a number of things the most powerful Nation in the world needs to do. I am not counting on our European friends. Already there have been statements by Angela Merkel and the leaking of a memorandum from the British Government. We may have to do a lot of these things by ourselves, because they are dependent on Russia for a lot of their energy supplies, and we have seen a significant recession in European leadership over the last 10 to 20 years. But we need to act, and we need to speak in favor of the people who are now being overtaken in Crimea by Vladimir Putin's army and military. I worry. In conclusion, I say it is time we wake up about Vladimir Putin. It is time this administration gets real. It is also time for us to worry about what Vladimir Putin will do in eastern Ukraine on the pretext that somehow disorder and demonstrations might require Russian presence. My friends, if we allow Mr. Putin to assert his authority over these areas because of Russian-speaking people, that message is not lost on Poland where there is a Russian population, on Romania, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Moldova. We are on the verge possibly of seeing a move to reassert the old Russian empire, which is Mr. Putin's lifelong ambition. I have overstayed my time. I thank my colleague from Alabama. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New Hampshire, who are on the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. My colleague from South Carolina laid out many of the salient facts according to how they transpired and didn't transpire. I will go forward a bit to last Sunday where on ``Meet the Press,'' Ambassador Rice was asked by David Gregory: When you were last here, Ambassador Rice, it was an eventful morning on the story of Benghazi and the horrible attack on our compound there. We haven't seen you in a while. As you look back at your involvement in all of that, do you have any regrets? David, no. Because what I said to you that morning, and what I did every day since, was to share the best information that we had at the time. The Senator from South Carolina has just outlined the fact that the information he had at the time was drastically different from that which was articulated that Sunday morning following the attack on our embassy and the death of four great Americans. So it was not the information that we had at the time. Then she said: And that information turned out, in some respects, not to be 100% correct. But the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false. The American people were misled. They were misled because she said, right after the attack, on ``Face the Nation,'' that it was ``based on the best information we have to date''--I quote from her statement back then, a few days after the attack--but based on the best information of what their assessment is: What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video. We know now for sure, and we knew then, before Ambassador Rice went on that Sunday show, that it was not because as the Senator from South Carolina just pointed out, the station chief sent a message immediately following saying that this was not--repeat, not--a spontaneous demonstration. I will submit that for the record. Somehow we have Ambassador Rice saying this was a hateful video that sparked this demonstration. It says: Whether there were Al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists, is one of the things we have to determine. But, again, she said: Sparked by this hateful video. There was no involvement of the hateful video. I hate to quote myself, but I was on that same program, and immediately after she spoke I said: Most people don't bring rocket-propelled grenades and heavy weapons to a demonstration. That was an act of terror and for anyone to disagree with that fundamental fact I think is really ignorant on the facts. We know now that we now have facts that she was absolutely wrong. Of course, the question also remains what in the world was Susan Rice doing speaking that morning? What was she doing there? She had nothing to do with it. She was the Ambassador to the United Nations. And Secretary Clinton was ``exhausted,'' I believe was the rationale given why she wasn't on every Sunday morning show. So the fact is we knew at the time Susan Rice said--and this is what it really was all about. It was all about a Presidential campaign and the narrative of bin Laden is dead, al-Qaeda is on the run, because then Susan Rice, in response to Bob Schieffer, said: President Obama said, when he was running for President, that he would refocus our efforts and attentions on Al-Qaeda. Then she said--get this--we have decimated Al-Qaeda; Osama bin Laden is gone. He also said we would end the war in Iraq responsibly. We have done that. Is there anybody here who thinks the war in Iraq has been ended responsibly? He has protected civilians in Libya, and Qadhafi is gone. Obviously, we have not decimated Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaida is not on the run. In fact, Al-Qaeda is increasing everywhere across the Middle East and North Africa. Anybody who believes when the black flags of Al-Qaeda are flying over the city of Fallujah, where 96 brave Americans, marines and soldiers died, and 600 were wounded, that things were ``ended in Iraq responsibly,'' obviously that is not the case. I think we have to understand the timing of all this. It was all part of a Presidential campaign. The President of the United States, in debate with Mitt Romney, said: Oh, I called it an act of terror. He didn't call it an act of terror. He didn't. In fact, 10 days later, at the U.N., he was still talking about hateful videos that sparked spontaneous demonstrations. The American people were badly misled. I yield for my colleague from New Hampshire.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate in morning business, and pending the arrival of the Republican leader, I will pause and then ask unanimous consent to return to my statement at that time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to appeal to the conscience of my colleagues and my fellow citizens about the mass atrocities that the Assad regime is perpetrating in Syria. When the images and horrors of this conflict occasionally show up on our television screens, the impulse of many Americans is to change the channel. But we must not look away. We must not divert our eyes from the suffering of the Syrian people, for if we do, we ignore, we sacrifice that which is most precious in ourselves--our ability to empathize with the suffering of others, to share it, to acknowledge through our own sense of revulsion that what is happening in Syria is a stain on the collective conscience of moral peoples everywhere. I appeal to my colleagues not to look away from the images I will show. I want to warn all who are watching these are graphic and disturbing pictures, but they are the real face of war and human suffering in Syria today--a war our Nation has the power to help end but which we are failing to do. These images are drawn from a cache of more than 55,000 photographs that were taken between March 2011 and August 2013 by a Syrian military policeman, whose job it was to document the horrors the Assad regime committed against political prisoners in its jails. This individual eventually defected to the opposition along with his photographs, which were meticulously reviewed and verified by three renowned international war crimes prosecutors and a team of independent forensic experts. They compiled their findings in a report late last month that provides direct evidence that the Assad regime was responsible for the systematic abuse, torture, starvation, and killing of approximately 11,000 detainees in what amounts to war crimes and crimes against humanity. These are just a few of those pictures and far from the most disturbing. I urge every Member of Congress and the American people to read the full report, which can be found on both cnn.com and theguardian.com. Although only a handful of these gruesome images have been released publicly, the authors have provided their own startling commentary on what they reveal. David Crane, the first chief prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the man responsible for indicting former Liberian President Charles Taylor for crimes against humanity, stated that many of the photographs show groupings of bodies in ways that ``looked like a slaughterhouse.'' Crane characterized the Syrian Government as a ``callous, industrial machine grinding its citizens'' that is guilty of ``industrial-age mass killing.'' Professor Sir Geoffrey Nice, lead prosecutor in the case against former Yugoslav President Milosevic at The Hague, reported that the systematic way the bodies were cataloged and the effort given to obscure the true causes of death leads one to ``reasonably infer that this is a pattern of behavior'' for Assad's forces. But perhaps most chilling of all, Sir Desmond de Silva, who also served as a chief prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, stated that the emaciated bodies revealed in these pictures are ``reminiscent of the pictures of those who were found still alive in the Nazi death camps after World War II.'' Yesterday, in a hearing of the Committee on Armed Services, I asked the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, whether these photographs, which clearly depict ghastly crimes against humanity, are authentic. The Director said he has ``no reason to doubt'' their authenticity. The United Nations is now doing its own assessment of these images, and all of us should fully support that. It is important to have the broadest possible validation of these images, and I am confident the U.N. team will validate them. After all, does anyone seriously believe the Assad regime does not have the means, motive, and opportunity to murder 11,000 people in its prisons? Indeed, this kind of inhumane cruelty is a pattern of behavior within the Syrian Government. According to a detailed U.N. report issued at the end of January, Assad's forces have systematically, as part of their doctrine, used children as human shields and threatened to kill the children of opposition members if they did not surrender. The U.N. also detailed the arrest, detention, torture, and sexual abuse of thousands of children by government forces. I will spare you the remaining details, as they are unspeakable, but again I urge you to read the entire report which can be found on the Web site of the United Nations. I also recommend that my colleagues read of the war crimes that Human Rights Watch has been documenting. They have reported, for example, on how Syrian authorities have deliberately used explosives and bulldozers to demolish thousands of residential buildings, and in some cases entire neighborhoods, for no military reason whatsoever, just as a form of collective punishment of Syrian civilians. Human Rights Watch researchers have also documented the toll of the Syrian Government's airstrike campaign against Aleppo and Damascus and, in particular, the regime's use over the past few months of what has become known as ``barrel bombs.'' For my colleagues who are not aware of them, barrel bombs are oil drums or other large containers packed with explosives, fuel, shrapnel, glass, and all manner of crude lethal material. Their sole purpose is to maim, kill, and terrorize as many people as possible when they are indiscriminately dropped from Syrian Government aircraft on schools and bakeries and mosques and other civilian areas. In one stark video of a barrel bomb's aftermath, a man stands in front of a child's body and cries out: Oh God, we have had enough. Please help us. These are just some of the many reasons our Director of National Intelligence referred to the Syrian crisis yesterday as ``an apocalyptic disaster.'' With more than 130,000 people dead, after more than one-third of the Syrian population has been driven from their homes, no truer words were ever spoken. 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. The regime's war crimes are being aided and abetted by thousands of Hezbollah fighters and Iranian agents on the ground, as well as Russian weaponry that continues to flow into the Assad government, even as Russia works with us to remove the Assad regime's chemical weapons, a truly Orwellian situation. The conflict in Syria is devastating its neighbors. Lebanon is suffering from increasing bombings and cross-border attacks by both the Syrian government and opposition fighters in response to Hezbollah's role in the fighting. Unofficial estimates suggest that half of Lebanon's population will soon be Syrian refugees. Similar estimates suggest that Syrian refugees now represent 15 percent of the population in Jordan, which is straining to manage the social instability this entails. Turkey has been destabilized. Perhaps most worrisome of all, the conflict in Syria is largely to blame for the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has grown into the larger and more lethal Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which now possesses a safe haven that spans large portions of both countries. Nowhere is this more threatening or more heartbreaking than in Fallujah, the Iraqi city where hundreds of U.S. troops were killed and wounded fighting to rid it of the terrorists and extremists, but where the black flags of Al Qaeda now hang above the city. The sanctuary that Al Qaeda now enjoys, thanks to the crisis in Syria, increasingly poses a direct threat to U.S. national security and that of our closest allies and partners. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Mr. Jeh Johnson said, ``Syria is now a matter of homeland security.'' The Director of National Intelligence has referred to the Al Qaeda sanctuary in Syria and Iraq as ``a new FATA''--the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan where Al Qaeda planned the September 11 terrorist attacks. Indeed, Director Clapper has 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. This was Afghanistan, September 10, 2001. That is what top officials in this administration are now warning us that Syria is becoming today. The conflict in Syria is a threat to our national interest, but it is more than that. It is and should be an affront to our conscience. Images such as these should not be just a source of heartbreak and sympathy, they should be a call to action. It was not too long ago, just a few months after the revolution in Syria began, that President Obama issued his Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities. In it he stated, ``Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.'' He went on to say: Our security is affected when masses of civilians are slaughtered, refugees flow across borders, and murderers wreak havoc on regional stability and livelihoods. Last year, speaking at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, the President said: Too often, the world has failed to prevent the killing of innocents on a massive scale. And we are haunted by the atrocities that we did not stop and the lives we did not save. Just last September in his address to the U.N. General Assembly, President Obama said this: [T]he principle of sovereignty is at the center of our international order. But sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder, or an excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye. While we need to be modest in our belief that we can remedy every evil, while we need to be mindful that the world is full of unintended consequences, should we really accept the notion that the world is powerless in the face of a Rwanda, or Srebrenica? If that's the world that people want to live in, they should say so, and reckon with the cold logic of mass graves. That was our President. That was the President of the United States. I agree with every word of what he said. But how are we to reconcile these stirring words with the reality of these images from Syria? How do we explain how the leader of the free world, who says that it is the moral obligation of the United States to do what we can to prevent the worst atrocities in our world, is not doing more to stop the atrocities that are occurring every single day in Syria? Where is that President Obama today? Where is the President Obama who spoke so movingly of the moral responsibilities that great power confers? Where is the President Obama who has said he refuses to accept that brutal tyrants can slaughter their people with impunity, while the most powerful nation in the history of the world looks on and stands by? Where is the recognition that the ``cold logic of mass graves'' is right there, right in front of us, Syria, today? Yet our government is doing what we have sadly done too often in the past. We are diverting our eyes. We try to comfort our guilty consciences by telling ourselves that we are not doing nothing, but it is a claim made in bad faith, for everyone concedes that nothing we are doing is equal to the horrors we face. We are telling ourselves that we are too tired and weary to get more involved; that Syria is not our problem; that helping to resolve it is not our responsibility. We are telling ourselves that we have no good options, as if there are ever good options when it comes to foreign policy in the real world. We are telling ourselves that we might have been able to do something at one point, but that it is too late now, as if such words from a leader of the world's only global power will be any comfort to the Syrian mother who will lose her child tomorrow. We are telling ourselves what Neville Chamberlain once told himself about a different problem from hell in an earlier time; that is, and I quote Neville Chamberlain, ``a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.'' Where is our outrage? Where is our shame? It is true that our options to help in the conflict in Syria were never good, and they certainly are worse and fewer now. But no one should believe that we are without options, even now, and no one should believe that doing something meaningful to help in Syria requires us to rerun the war in Iraq. That is an excuse for inaction. That is not a question of options or capabilities; it is a question of will. These images of the human disaster in Syria haunt me. They should haunt all of my colleagues and all Americans. But what haunts me even more than the terror unfolding before our eyes in Syria is the thought that we will continue to do nothing meaningful about it, and how that deadens our national conscience, how it calls into question the moral sources of our great power and the foundations of our global leadership, and how many years from now an American President will stand before the world and the people of Syria, as previous Presidents have done after previous inaction in the face of mass atrocities in far away lands, and say what all of us know to be true right now: That we could have done more to stop the suffering of others. We could have used the power we possess, limited though it may be; we could have exercised the options at our disposal, imperfect though they may be, and we could have done something. It is to our everlasting embarrassment that we did not. That future President will apologize for our current failure. Shame on us if we let history repeat itself that way.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield to the majority leader.

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