John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. My colleague from South Carolina will join me shortly on the floor, but I will make some remarks while I am waiting. When the Senator from South Carolina joins me, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Some of us were in the Senate 10 years ago in 2004 when U.S. troops led two major offensives against Al Qaeda and other militants in the Iraqi city of Fallujah. Some of us remember how 146 of our brave men and women in uniform lost their lives and more than 1,000 were wounded. Those fights were some of the bloodiest and toughest battles since the Vietnam war. Success was costly, but success we had. Ten years later, Al Qaeda fighters have once again raised their black flags over Fallujah, and they are battling to control other parts of Iraq. This tragic setback is leaving many of our brave Iraq war veterans-- and especially those who shed their blood, risked their lives, and lost their friends in fighting against Fallujah--questioning what their sacrifice was worth. Sadly, they find themselves agreeing with Congressman Duncan Hunter, a former marine who fought in Fallujah. He said: We did our job. We did what we were asked to do, and we won. Every single man and woman who fought in Iraq, and especially in those cities, feels a kick in the gut for all they did, because this President decided to squander their sacrifice. Prior to 2011, President Obama frequently referred to a responsible withdrawal from Iraq, which was based on leaving behind a stable and representative government in Baghdad and avoiding a power vacuum that terrorists could exploit. The President's Deputy National Security Adviser Antony Blinken in 2012--and I am not making this up--stated that ``Iraq today is less violent, more democratic, and more prosperous . . . than any other time in history.'' Based on the President's own markers, the administration is falling short of its own goals. The illusion of a stable and representative government has been shattered by increasing sectarian tension, and it is clear terrorists are exploiting the power vacuum left behind. The Obama administration blames Iraqis for failing to grant the necessary privileges and immunities for a U.S. force presence beyond 2011. This is misleading--in fact, false--because as we saw firsthand, the administration never took the necessary diplomatic effort to reach such an agreement. The Senator from South Carolina and I traveled to Iraq in May 2011, only several months away from the deadline that our commanders had set for the beginning of the withdrawal. We met with all the leaders of Iraq's main political blocs and we heard a common message during all of these private conversations: Iraqi leaders recognized it was in their country's interest to maintain a limited number of U.S. troops to continue training and assisting Iraqi security forces beyond 2011. But when we asked Ambassador Jeffrey and the Commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq Lloyd Austin, while in a meeting with Prime Minister Maliki, how many U.S. troops remaining in Iraq would perform and how many the administration sought to maintain, they couldn't tell us or the Iraqis. The White House still had not made a decision. It went on like this for the next few months. By August 2011, leaders of Iraq's main political blocs joined together and stated they were prepared to enter negotiations to keep some U.S. troops in Iraq. An entire month passed and still the White House made no decision. All the while, during this internal deliberation, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff GEN Martin Dempsey later testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the size of a potential U.S. force presence kept cascading down from upwards of 16,000 to an eventual low of less than 3,000. By that point, the force would be able to do little other than protect itself, and Prime Minister Maliki and other Iraqi leaders realized the political cost of accepting this proposal was not worth the benefit. To blame this failure entirely on the Iraqis is convenient, but it misses the real point. The reason to keep around 10,000 to 15,000 U.S. forces in Iraq was not for the sake of Iraq alone. It was first and foremost in our national security interest to continue training and advising Iraqi forces and to maintain greater U.S. influence in Iraq. That core principle should have driven a very different U.S. approach to the SOFA--the status of forces agreement--diplomacy. The Obama administration should have recognized that after years of brutal conflict, Iraqi leaders still lacked trust in one another, and a strong U.S. role was required to help Iraqis broker their most politically sensitive decisions. For this reason the administration should have determined what tasks and troop numbers were in the national interest to maintain in Iraq and done so with ample time to engage with Iraqis at the highest level of the U.S. Government to shape political conditions in Baghdad to achieve our goal. We focus on this failure not because U.S. troops would have made a decisive difference in Iraq by engaging in unilateral combat operations against Al Qaeda and other threats to Iraq's stability. By 2011, U.S. forces were no longer in Iraqi cities or engaged in security operations. However, residual U.S. troop presence could have assisted Iraqi forces in their continued fight against Al Qaeda, it could have provided a platform for greater diplomatic engagement and intelligence cooperation with our Iraqi partners, it could have made Iranian leaders think twice about using Iraqi airspace to transit military assistance and weapons and arms and equipment to Assad and his forces in Syria and, most importantly, it could have maintained the significant diplomatic influence the United States at that time possessed in Iraq-- influence that had been and still was essential in guaranteeing Iraq's nascent political system, reassuring Iraqi leaders they could resolve their differences peacefully and politically, despite their mistrust of one another, and checking the authoritarian and sectarian tendencies of Prime Minister Maliki and his allies. The administration's failure in Iraq has been further compounded by its failure in Syria. In Syria, where President Obama has refused to take any meaningful action, the initially peaceful protests of early 2011 were met by horrific violence by the Assad regime. This President and this administration have stood back and watched while over 130,000 people have been brutally killed and a fourth of the population displaced. In his promise to avoid military action and reduce the U.S. footprint in the Middle East, we have seen the resurgence of Al Qaeda throughout the region, Hezbollah and Iran emboldened in Syria, Russia reasserting its principal presence for the first time since it was kicked out of Egypt by Egyptian President Sadat in 1973, and the destabilization of the region in ways that will inevitably reverberate here in America. Again, there are those who may applaud President Obama's decision to disengage, arguing this isn't America's problem to solve. That the United States is fundamentally limited in its ability to influence developments in the Middle East is a consistent theme within the administration. No one denies there are limits to what the United States can do. That is always the case. But as Secretary Hillary Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as she was leaving office: Let me underscore the importance of the United States continuing to lead in the Middle East, North Africa and around the world. When America is absent, especially from unstable environments, there are consequences. Extremism takes root, our interests suffer, and our security at home is threatened. Nowhere do her words ring more true than in Syria and Iraq today, begging the question that by fleeing Iraq and sidestepping Syria has the administration helped empower terrorist forces in ways that have created long-term threats to U.S. national security? I am afraid it is hard to argue the answer is no. The administration must recognize its failed policies and change its course. America has lost credibility and influence over the past years, and we simply can't afford to remain disengaged. It is time that America stands and take its rightful role in resolving these conflicts to best serve American interests. It is time we adopt a comprehensive strategy for addressing the growing threats that are now emanating from the region and move forward from a position of strength. A return of Al Qaeda to Anbar Province is a sobering reminder for the administration that the tide of war is not receding. I see my colleague from South Carolina is here. I am sorry I didn't realize he had come to the floor. I know the Senator from South Carolina and I need to discuss a recent unfortunate development in Afghanistan, but before we do, could I recall for my friend from South Carolina the many visits--and I have lost count, but many visits--we made to Iraq from 2003 really up to 2012, and that one of the most interesting visits we had was when we were in Ramadi and Colonel MacFarland announced to us that the Sunni sheiks had come over--that the major sheik had come over, and he had sent some tanks over--and that was the beginning of what we know as the Anbar awakening--a turning point in the entire conflict. That, coupled with the surge, changed the fortunes of war in Iraq. By the way, the surge was opposed vehemently by the President of the United States and the former Secretary of State, then Senator Clinton, who stated in a hearing with General Petraeus that she would have to have a ``willing suspension of disbelief in order to believe that the surge would succeed.'' But setting that aside, later, when we came back again to Fallujah and Ramadi, the Senator from South Carolina and I walked down the main street of Ramadi--down the main street--with Iraqis everywhere, proving the success of the surge in Anbar Province. Yet now, on the same streets we walked down--the exact same streets--there are now vehicles filled with Al Qaeda, flying the black flag of Al Qaeda. The bloodiest war of the conflict that was fought during our entire involvement with Iraq was the second battle of Fallujah. There were 95 brave Americans killed and over 600 wounded. What do we tell these young people and their families? What do we tell them? I tell you what we have to tell them. We have to tell them their sacrifice was squandered by an administration that wanted out and didn't want to remain and consolidate the gains that were made through the sacrifice of American blood and treasure.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask the Senator again: One, Iraq and Syria now are in danger of becoming a base for Al Qaeda and movement back and forth between that area of Anbar Province, which obviously poses an enormous threat, because we know what the ultimate goal of Al Qaeda is. Could I also recall for my friend from South Carolina the meeting we had with Maliki--after we had met with Allawi, after we had met with Barzani, the leader of the Kurds, who all agreed we would get together and endorse a U.S. troop presence to remain in Iraq. This administration refused--even after we came back and begged them to give us a number--refused to give the number, claiming it had to be endorsed by their Parliament, which was absolutely false. But now we see Iranian aircraft overflying Iraq with weapons and arms for Bashar al-Assad. We see Anbar and that area of Syria and Iraq now becoming possibly a base for Al Qaeda to operate. We see the two major cities in Anbar, Ramadi, and Fallujah--where so much American blood was shed--now with vehicles driving around with the black flag of Al Qaeda on display. I think it is important we make it clear. The Senator from South Carolina and I are not advocating sending combat troops back to Iraq. That is impossible. It may be an avenue, but it is impossible, and we are not advocating that. We are advocating that we give advice, send equipment, and we give them some capabilities. We help them with intelligence. There are certain places we can help them. But at the same time, now Prime Minister Maliki has to reach out to the Sunnis and get a reconciliation. From the day U.S. troops left Iraq, Maliki began to persecute the Sunni. He even charged his own Vice President, who was a Sunni, with treason and the Vice President had to leave the country. So if any of this is going to work, if we have any influence--and have no doubt who has the influence in Iraq today: Iran. But if we have any influence, we have to tell Maliki we want to help and we want to give him the kind of technical assistance he needs. But he has to reach out to the Sunni in the way that took place in the Anbar awakening back in 2008. Because without national reconciliation, all the equipment and all the assistance we can give the Iraqis will not help. So I do blame Prime Minister Maliki. Responsibility lies with his behavior toward the Sunni, but we were not there to influence him. We were not there. It is not only the kind of assistance we could have provided them that they need, but it also is the influence issue. No expert on Iraq today will tell you we have anything but a minimal influence and Iran has that. If anybody thinks Al Qaeda's control of large portions of Iraq and Syria is not a threat to the United States of America, then they don't understand the nature of Al Qaeda.

Mr. McCAIN. I would argue, I say to the Senator from South Carolina, two names which spring to mind would be General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, probably the two most respected people in Iraq today. Maybe we are getting into too much detail, but I do agree with him on that.

Mr. McCAIN. I don't think there is any doubt, I would say to my friend from South Carolina, that this has become an almost safe operating area on both sides of the Syria-Iraq border for Al Qaeda. It is interesting. There has been a little good news in the last day or two; that is, some of the more moderate forces in Syria have struck back at this radical Islamist group because of the incredible cruelty of al-Nusra and ISIS, which is the radical Islamic group both in Iraq and Syria. Interestingly enough, that is being accomplished without any U.S. help. Thank God for the other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others which have been of assistance to these people. They have been driving out some of the more extremist element. We are working with the Russians to remove the chemical weapons. In Syria today, Bashar al-Assad, from helicopters, is dropping these crude cluster bombs which are just shrapnel that kill anybody within lethal range. Since dropping it on populated areas, Bashar al-Assad has slaughtered innocent men, women, and children. So here we are working with the Russians. Today there was a U.N. resolution from the Security Council condemning Bashar al-Assad's barbaric behavior. Guess who vetoed that. Our friends, the Russians. This is the most Orwellian situation in Iraq anybody has ever seen throughout history. Russians are working with us to remove chemical weapons from Syria and at the same time aircraft from Russia are landing full of weapons to kill Syrian men, women, and children. I am not sure a Syrian mother can differentiate between her child dying from a chemical weapon or dying from one of these cluster bombs that Bashar al-Assad is unloading from his helicopters. So we have this grandiose idea the Secretary of State and the administration have been pushing for months and months to have a Geneva II. The first Geneva failed. Does anyone on God's green Earth believe that Bashar al-Assad, who is winning, is going to preside over his own transition from power? Of course not. I will never forget--I am sure the Senator from South Carolina will never forget--the testimony of our now still Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Armed Services Committee: Bashar al-Assad inevitably will leave. The President of the United States: Bashar al-Assad, it is not a matter of when, it is not a matter of whether he will leave but a matter of when. Meanwhile, the weapons pour in from Iran; Hezbollah, 5,000 of them; 130,000 people slaughtered, and one-quarter of the population being slaughtered, while this administration not only sits by and does nothing but the President of the United States says nothing. This will go down as one of the most shameful chapters in American history. If the policy of this administration is to only focus on counterterrorism, get out of the Middle East, and remove any involvement of the United States in the Middle East, I can assure my colleagues the Middle East will not allow the United States of America to not be involved.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, thank you for your patience. We yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, yesterday, the Senate voted to confirm Janet Yellen to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Regrettably, I was not in Washington and was not present for the vote. Had I been here, I would have voted no on this nomination. While Ms. Yellen may be well- qualified for this position, I do not support her nomination due to her support of monetary policies such as quantitative easing, QE, that have distorted the markets and artificially stimulated the economy. With interest rates at record lows, economic growth continues to be anemic and unemployment rates are higher than normal. During her confirmation hearing, Ms. Yellen admitted that there are ``costs and risks'' associated with the QE program but still signaled support. QE has done little more than increase uncertainty in our economy and opened the door for high interest rates in the future. The Federal Reserve must stop this ill-conceived, wholly irresponsible approach and Congress and the administration must enact fiscally responsible policies that strengthen the middle class by creating jobs, growing the economy and cutting the red tape that continues to hamper the private sector.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I just watched again what is going on here on the floor of the Senate. Again there is a unanimous consent request to pass a major piece of legislation without an amendment, without debate, without the ability of those on this side of the aisle to even have an amendment considered and voted on, again completely shutting out this side of the aisle from the ability in any way to effect legislation. So now I am sure those on the other side of the aisle are going to go out and say: Oh, the Republicans, look at them, they will not even agree to an extension of unemployment insurance. Won't you let us have an amendment? Won't you let us at least have debate and vote on an amendment? There are some of us who think this program can be improved to help those who are unemployed. But, no, the way the Senate runs today it is either take it or leave it. I will tell the Chair and I will tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we are getting sick and tired of it. We are getting sick and tired of the dictatorial way the U.S. Senate is being run. The Senator from South Carolina and I are on the floor to talk about, among other things, the National Defense Authorization Act, the bill that has to do with this Nation's defense. Are we going to be able to have a single amendment? No. The bill has been out of the Senate Armed Services Committee since May. So we are not going to address the issue of sexual assaults, protecting individual rights in light of revelations in NSA data collection. I would say to my colleagues, the President had a commission that just made some recommendations. Would it not be appropriate to take those commission recommendations, debate them here on the floor of the Senate, and amend the bill so that some of these recommendations by this commission could be enacted into law? Do we believe that the issue of surveillance, of NSA data collection, is not an issue that should be debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate? We would be doing that--we would be debating, we would be amending, we would be making it better, we would be protecting the privacy of Americans' lives--if on this floor we were amending and debating the Defense authorization bill. But we are not. We are not. Are we going to talk about this incredible issue which has permeated so much debate, both in and outside of the Congress of the United States, of sexual assaults in the military? No. Nope. We are not going to allow an amendment on the other side of the aisle by the Senator from New York, who has made it her major legislative effort. We are not going to hear from this side of the aisle, where the Senator from Missouri has made it her major issue. No, we are not going to debate it. We are not going to amend it. What about the issue of detainees? The Senator from South Carolina and I are not in complete agreement. I had looked forward to a debate with him about how we dispose of the situation of detainees, each one of whom is costing a million and a half dollars per year for their incarceration. But, no, we are not going to do any of that today or tomorrow or next week or next month or maybe even next year if the majority leader of the Senate continues to run the Senate in such a way that we cannot even have debate and discussion. I will tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this is bad for the U.S. Senate, but it is worse for the American people. We have an obligation to the American people to debate issues, to vote on them, to pass legislation that we think is the best outcome. There would be votes I would lose, there would be votes I would win, but we are not going to have any votes. The galling thing about it is that the Defense bill passed through the Senate Armed Services Committee in May. So we went to June, July, August, September, October, November, and here we are finally maybe going out for the year and we are going to have an up-or-down vote--an up-or-down vote--on the Defense authorization bill. That is shameful. That is a perversion of everything that the U.S. Senate was designed for by our Founding Fathers, and there is no doubt about it. I came to the floor with my friend from South Carolina to talk about Iran sanctions. But have no doubt--have no doubt--I tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you are doing a great disservice to the American people, to the men and women who are serving this Nation, by not even fully debating and amending and voting on those amendments on this bill. You are doing a disservice to the men and women who are serving this Nation. So you should not be proud of this process we are going through. Some time today or tomorrow, depending on how many hours go by, we will have a vote, and I will vote to pass the bill. I will vote that way because I cannot do this to the American people, to the men and women who are serving. There are too many provisions in it that address bonuses, special duty, incentive pay, military construction, security--all kinds of issues that are obtained in this bill. So we cannot turn it down, but we cannot make it a bill that the American people should be proud of. In fact, we should be embarrassed at the process we are engaged in. Frankly, I know the American people are not too interested or aware of the arcane promises of the U.S. Senate, but steps were taken early and not that long ago that have changed the entire U.S. Senate, and it has changed it for the worse. I can assure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that it will be very difficult--very, very difficult--for us to work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle on most any issue when we are being deprived of the fundamental rights of a U.S. Senator, and that is the right to propose an amendment, debate, and have a vote, if that U.S. Senator wishes it. No longer are 45 Members on this side of the aisle allowed what should be our right--not a privilege, our right--to amend this legislation in order to make it better and make it a better and more effective way to defend this Nation. I have been around this body for a long time. This may be one of the lowest points I have seen, particularly in light of the fact that the Defense authorization bill for 51 years has been brought to the floor of the Senate, it has been debated, it has been amended, sometimes for as long as 3 weeks, and now what are we going to do? Sometime tonight or tomorrow, at some hour, we are going to have the privilege of voting yea or nay on a bill that is vital to our Nation's security. Disgraceful. I see my colleague from South Carolina on the floor, and I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am sure my colleague and friend saw the article in the Wall Street Journal this morning that says ``France Doubts Iran Ready for Nuclear Pact. Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius Questions Whether Tehran Is Willing to Abandon the Ability to Build an Atomic Bomb.'' Really, in the first paragraph of this story--I would ask my colleague--is the fundamental problem. There are many issues concerning the Iranians lie, cheat for years and years about their continued progress toward the acquisition of a nuclear weapon. But I would ask my friend from South Carolina, isn't it really about the most important-- let me put it this way: The most important aspect of this whole issue of these negotiations is the right to enrich? In other words, will the Iranians--haven't we already given over to them the right to continue to have the centrifugal spin and the enrichment process continue so that at some point, sooner or later, they may be only the turn of a wrench away from a nuclear weapon?

Mr. McCAIN. May I say to my friend that one of the things that would happen right away--I think it is well known; it is not a secret--is that many nations in the region would then quickly acquire nuclear weapons. The wealthiest ones might just buy one from Pakistan. That is not a secret. But could I ask my colleague this: So therefore we now have a period of 6 months which originally was stated as the end goal, that an agreement would be made and finalized and would be ready to be put into effect. But then we hear: Well, maybe it is going take more than 6 months. One, haven't we seen that movie before--extended and protected negotiations, and then the centrifuges, as the Senator from South Carolina mentioned, continue to spin. Also, wouldn't it be appropriate for the Congress to say to the administration--and, more importantly, to the Iranians--that after 6 months, my friends, the screws are going to tighten because if they cannot get an agreement in 6 months, then it would be appropriate for there to be additional pressures that would then hopefully be incentives for them to reach a final agreement rather than the status quo, which most of us believe is not satisfactory under this 6-month period. Should there not be some sanctions that would kick in after a 6-month period, and then the Iranians would know that if they do not reach an agreement, then the sanctions will be more severe? Perhaps my colleague can explain to me why the Secretary of State and the administration seem to be so opposed to us putting more pressure on the whole process to be finalized. Six months seems to be a reasonable length of time to get that done.

Mr. McCAIN. Well, I think it might. I think this whole perception of the United States around the world, of our weakness, whether it be manifested in the Middle East with recent--I am sure my friend from South Carolina saw the comments of the former high-ranking member of the Saudi Government. The Japanese are now starting to go their own way because they believe the American pivot is not reality. There are manifestations of this perception of American weakness all over the world. So I am not sure they believe we are serious here or most anyplace else. The Senator from South Carolina raises an excellent point. I seem to remember that during the days of the Cold War we used to look at the reviewing stand on the May Day Parade, and we would point out one guy and say: Well, he is a moderate. He is a soft-liner. Well, he is a hard-liner. You know, we hope that--fill in the blank--is going to really have a beneficial effect and that the Russians are going to change and blah, blah, blah. There was always this belief about hard- liners and soft-liners. We know now from history that was never the case. So now we look at Iran. Oh, there are the hard-liners and the soft- liners. Doesn't that ignore the fundamental fact that there is one man who governs Iran and makes all the decisions? That guy is the Ayatollah. Now that Ahmadinejad, the hard-liner--and Rouhani, by the way, as the Senator from South Carolina mentioned, bragged and bragged about how he deceived the Americans and the other countries when he was the negotiator for Iran. Now he is the moderate. Now he is the good guy. So all this is fraud. But I guess the other point that I think really needs to be made that we forget is this: In Syria and in Iran--this administration, this President, and this Secretary of State look at these countries as an arms control issue. They look at Syria as an arms control issue while from helicopters they are dropping bombs that are killing and massacring women and children, while they are committing the most atrocious acts--on the one hand, the Secretary of State and his friend Sergei Lavrov are removing chemical weapons from Syria while planeloads of weapons from Russia fly into Damascus, and they kill people. I am not sure whether a mother in Syria can discriminate whether that child was killed by a chemical weapon or by a conventional weapon. So here we have the Iranians committing acts of terror all over the world, sending the Iranian Revolutionary Guard into Syria, training Bashar Assad's troops in Iran and sending them back, sending in supply after supply of weapons to kill Syrians, plots to kill even the Saudi Arabia Ambassador here in Washington, DC. Yemen has tried to smuggle in a whole boatload of weapons from Iran. The list goes on and on of their Persian ambitions throughout the Arab world and the world, but, by golly, we trust them to sit down and negotiate with us seriously on the issue of nuclear weapons. This is the most narrow view of Iran that has ever happened in history. So I do not see how we can judge Iranian seriousness about really wanting to rein in and eliminate their progress toward nuclear weapons without considering their behavior throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East, which is one of aggression, terror, and outright murder of people and destabilizing the entire region to the Iranian advantage.

Mr. McCAIN. True.

Mr. McCAIN. May I interrupt? I forgot one aspect of Iranian behavior that is the most egregious: their sponsorship of Hezbollah. There are 5,000 Hezbollah from Lebanon, sponsored by Iran, who are killing Syrians as we speak at the bidding of the Ayatollah and maybe Rouhani, who is supposed to be a moderate.

Mr. McCAIN. I would also point out, one, if we are looking for one bright spot, that we see countries in the gulf and the Middle East aligning with Israel in a way that we have never seen before. Shouldn't we listen to the Prime Minister of Israel, which is the first target of Iran? It is the country about which the Iranians said, and have not renounced, that it is their commitment to ``wiping Israel off the map.'' Does the Senator think that maybe relations between ourselves and Israel are at the lowest ebb? Does the Senator think it is an accident when now the Saudis and leaders of other countries are outspoken in their derision of the United States for a lack of leadership in the Middle East? Finally, isn't it interesting that the Russians, for the first time since 1973, when Anwar Sadat threw them out of Egypt, are now major players in the Middle East?

Mr. McCAIN. I think so. I thank my colleagues for their forbearance. I agree with the Senator from South Carolina. I think it is imperative for the Congress and our role in the U.S. Government that these sanctions be enacted. The administration has plenty of time to negotiate, but we want to be prepared for failure. There is no reason not to make those preparations. I began our conversation with the comments of the foreign minister of France. That concern is shared by many of our friends and allies both in and out of the region. I note the presence of the Senator from Mississippi on the floor. I am sure he has some very important words that will be translated into English. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN. First, I want to thank Senator Levin and the Senator from Oklahoma for their leadership and hard work on this legislation, and I congratulate them on the great work they have done. But could I ask the Senator from Michigan, is this the first time in 51 years that a defense authorization bill will be voted on without debate or any amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. Excuse me, without extended debate and addressing the issues of sexual assault, NSA, detainees. Have any of those issues been addressed by debate and amendment on the floor of the Senate?

Mr. McCAIN. Could I finally say to the Senator, I have never seen a process like this before. Maybe there have been some parallels, No. 1. No. 2, here we are on December 19 of 2013 and we passed a bill through the committee in May. So here we are, many months later, taking up a bill because the majority's priorities were obviously not to bring up the Defense authorization bill until it was so late we are forced into this cramped procedure. There is no doubt--and I thank the Senator and my distinguished chairman--that we haven't debated this bill. We haven't debated NSA. We haven't debated this issue of sexual assaults, with two different opinions here, the sanctions, the detainee issue--all of those issues. I remember in the markup we said we will wait. It is so important, we will wait and amend this on the floor. So I don't think we have done the men and women who are serving in the military anything but a gross disservice by, in December, having a bill rammed through the Senate, and that is because of a lack of priorities on the part of leadership. We could have taken this bill to the floor of the Senate in June and we didn't. What a shame.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask if the chairperson of the Budget Committee will engage in a brief dialogue, colloquy.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would ask my friend, the chairperson of the Budget Committee, who has done extremely hard work on the budget agreement, is the Senator aware that under the Simpson-Bowles plan-- which was embraced by many, many Members of this body, including on this side, including on the other side, including those who have now announced their opposition to the agreement, the Ryan-Murray budget-- that the Simpson-Bowles plan recommends scrapping COLAs, cost-of-living adjustments, entirely? It not just cuts them, but the Simpson-Bowles plan--I wonder if the chairperson knows--eliminates COLAs entirely for working age military retirees? The Simpson-Bowles plan, which was so embraced and everybody thought was the greatest thing since sliced bread, said: Defer Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for retirees in the current system until age 62, including for civilian and military retirees who retire well before a conventional retirement age. In place of annual increases, provide a one- time catch-up adjustment at age 62 to increase the benefit to the amount that would have been payable had full COLAS been in effect. So basically what Simpson-Bowles recommended was scrapping the cost- of-living adjustment for working age military retirees. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the provision in the Senator's bill is a 1- percent reduction--far, far less than scrapping it entirely, as Simpson-Bowles recommended. I would ask again, where was the outrage, to quote my old friend Bob Dole, where was the outrage when this provision in Simpson-Bowles was included, which would have scrapped it completely? It was not through the Armed Services Committee. It was the Simpson-Bowles plan, which was a commission. I would ask the distinguished chairperson.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, could I ask the chairperson, is it not true that what you have proposed is 1-percentage point for military retirees--to reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment by 1 percentage point for military retirees--which means, according to House Budget Committee staff: A person who enlisted at age 18 and retired at 38 as a sergeant first class in the Army would see approximately a 6- percent overall reduction in lifetime pay because of the COLA reduction; that is, that person would receive about $1.626 million in lifetime retirement pay instead of $1.734 million. So that is as compared to what Simpson-Bowles envisioned: complete elimination, as opposed to this 1-percent reduction. I would also ask, again, to the chairperson of the Budget Committee, is it not true that this cost-of-living adjustment reduction, the 1 percent, does not kick in until 2015, the end of 2015? And is it not true that Senator Levin, and I, and all others, have committed to reviewing this provision, with the outlook, at least in my view, to repealing it if necessary? But also there is a commission, supported by Members on both sides of the aisle, which looks at this entire issue of cost-of-living adjustments, of retirement, of TRICARE, of all of these issues because of the increasing costs of these benefits--in the words of Secretary Gates, former Secretary of Defense, who all of us admire so much--that are ``eating us alive.'' So again, the Simpson-Bowles plan, which was embraced almost unanimously on both sides of the aisle, eliminates the cost-of-living adjustments for any retirees during their working age. This plan, which is met with such outrage, is only a 1-percent reduction--by the way, I want revised as well--that they would receive $1.626 million instead of $1.734 million. Finally, I would ask the distinguished chairperson, does she know of another plan, another idea, another legislative proposal that will prevent us from shutting down the government again--something I refuse to inflict on the citizens of my State? I refuse to disturb their lifestyles, to destroy their income, to shut down essential government services, the nightmare we just went through. So I guess my question to the chairperson is, does the Senator know of another avenue between now and I believe it is January 15 when the government would be shut down again that we could pursue that would prevent another government shutdown?