John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the dedicated public service of Paul Francis, who will soon retire as managing director for acquisition and sourcing management with the Government Accountability Office, GAO, a position he has held since 2009. For more than 42 years, Paul has helped the U.S. Congress analyze the $2 trillion in the ships, planes, tactical vehicles, satellites, and scores of other systems and related services that the Department of Defense, DOD, has procured to make our Nation safe. In so doing, Paul has obtained the respect of the Members of this body and the deep affection of his colleagues, who for decades have hewed to his fine example of public service. An important congressional oversight tool that Paul helped develop at GAO almost 15 years ago is its annual ``Quick Look'' assessment of the Pentagon's procurement of its most expensive, most complicated weapon systems. In these reports and in the hundreds of individual reports that GAO has released on major defense acquisition programs, Paul's teams first identified, and railed--occasionally like a lone voice in the wilderness--against the proliferation of ``concurrent development'' throughout the Pentagon's portfolio of major procurement programs. As Paul and his team observed, this acquisition strategy, which features an excessive overlap between development and production, has exposed the DOD's largest weapons procurement efforts to an undue, high risk of discoveries late in production, often requiring costly redesign, production cut-ins and retrofits--driving up the costs of these programs exponentially, especially those executed carelessly under cost-plus contracts. These observations have been vital to Congress's attempts to reform, among other programs, the joint strike fighter and the aerial refueling tanker programs and provided Congress with a valuable framework for analyzing and overseeing how the DOD spends hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars each year. Since first becoming a member of the Senior Executive Service in 2002, Paul has testified before Congress more than 20 times--sounding the alarm on everything from unmanned aerial vehicles, the Army's Future Combat System, shipbuilding and missile defense programs, and broader issues of acquisition best practices and reform. For more than a decade, I have relied greatly on his clear analysis and recommendations related to the Ford-class aircraft carrier and littoral combat ship programs. In addition, Paul has been an excellent witness, who counterbalances the Pentagon's complicated, technical, and bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, which I sometimes think the DOD purposefully uses to resist being understood by a layperson, with cogent, plainspoken, evenhanded, but nuanced assessments. Time and again, Paul has thoughtfully illustrated the practices that should be followed to ensure success, as well as how poorly aligned bureaucratic incentives lead to failure despite well- intentioned individuals. Also noting that all individuals participating in the defense acquisition process ``see their needs as rational and aligned with the national interest, collectively'' and that ``these needs create incentives for pushing programs and encouraging undue optimism, parochialism, and other compromises of good judgment,'' Paul has reminded us that the problems we see in the defense acquisition process are not the fault of any one actor--they are the collective responsibility of all of us. Paul epitomizes what Congress and the American public value about the Government Accountability Office--the honest broker. In believing that oversight of programs funded by taxpayer dollars represents a sacred trust and in embracing this responsibility aggressively with joy, Paul has been a tireless, effective advocate for both the American taxpayer and the men and women in service to the government's many and varied missions. He has inspired his teams with this notion of resource stewardship, that American taxpayers should get what they have paid for and American warfighters should get the capabilities they need to defend this great Nation. Paul has received numerous GAO awards during his career, including the Comptroller General's Award and the John Henry Luke Mentoring Award. Leading by example at GAO, he models his own motto, which is ``Be right. Communicate well. Don't leave people in body bags.'' Throughout his remarkable career with GAO, Paul has been supported by a wonderful family, including his wife, Vicky, and two daughters, Sheri and Katie--all of whom are engaged in public service in various ways. We wish Paul a fond farewell and thank him for his distinguished service to Congress and the American public. Thank you.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Congressman Mick Mulvaney to serve as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Under most circumstances, I always give the benefit of the doubt to the incoming President for obvious reasons; that he is the choice of the American people. So it is with great reluctance that I come to the floor of the Senate to rise in opposition to the nomination of Congressman Mick Mulvaney. President Trump has committed to ``end the Defense sequester and rebuild our military.'' Earlier this month, the President promised troops at CENTCOM headquarters that his administration ``will make an historic financial investment in the armed forces of the United States.'' I fully support the President's commitment. I fear that Congressman Mulvaney, as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, does not. I believe we must rebuild our military while at the same time putting our Nation on a sustainable, long-term fiscal path. We can and must do both. Unfortunately, Congressman Mulvaney has spent his last 6 years in the House of Representatives pitting the national debt against our military. He offered amendments in support of cutting our national defense funding year after year after year. As my colleagues and I sought repeatedly to find legislative solutions to reverse dangerous defense cuts and eliminate arbitrary defense spending caps, it was Congressman Mulvaney and his allies who repeatedly sought to torpedo these efforts. In 2013, Congressman Mulvaney succeeded in passing an amendment to cut $3.5 billion from the Defense appropriations bill. His website featured an article touting the achievement, but when I asked him about that vote during his confirmation hearing, Congressman Mulvaney said he didn't remember that amendment. I think anybody who treats our national defense with the seriousness it deserves would remember a vote like that. President Trump has said that defense cuts over the last several years have depleted our military. Our military leaders have testified that these cuts have placed the ``lives of'' our military ``servicemembers at greater risk.'' That is an exact quote from our military leaders, but Congressman Mulvaney has said that in the greater scheme of things, sequestration cuts were not that big. He also said: ``The only thing worse than those military cuts would be no cuts at all.'' This is the kind of statement that can only be made by a person detached from the reality of what these cuts have meant to military servicemembers. Tell that to the thousands of soldiers who were forced out of the Army because of these cuts. Tell that to the Marine pilots who fly fewer hours per month than their Russian and Chinese counterparts because of these cuts. Tell that to the Air Force maintainers, stealing parts from retired aircraft and museum pieces to keep their planes in the air because of sequestration. Tell that to the crew of the submarine USS Boise who can't deploy because their boat is no longer qualified to dive and can't receive required upkeep because of chronic maintenance backlogs. Tell that to the thousands of Navy sailors who have picked up the slack for an overworked Navy by going on extended deployments and spending more and more time away from their families, all because of the defense cuts. Congressman Mulvaney's beliefs, as revealed by his poor record on defense spending, are fundamentally at odds with President Trump's commitment to rebuild our military. This record can't be ignored in light of the significant authority exercised by the Director of the OMB over the Federal budget. Almost every one of my colleagues in this body--all but one--voted for Jim Mattis to be Secretary of Defense because they knew he was the right leader to help the Department of Defense confront growing threats to our national security. I share that same confidence, but I also know he can't do it alone. Voting in favor of Congressman Mulvaney's nomination would be asking Secretary Mattis to spend less time fighting our enemies overseas and more time fighting inside the beltway budget battles with an OMB Director with a deep ideological commitment to cutting the resources available to his Department. Congressman Mulvaney's record is equally troubling when it comes to foreign policy. Apparently, Congressman Mulvaney shared President Obama's naive assumptions about Russia's threat to Eastern security when he voted to require the withdrawal of two Army brigade combat teams from Europe in 2012. He compounded the error in 2013 when he voted to withdraw the 2nd Cavalry Regiment from Europe. Congressman Mulvaney and others supported these withdrawals in the name of saving money, but the shortsighted decision to withdraw troops and capabilities from Europe ended up costing the taxpayers billions more, not less. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, America's military presence in Europe was inadequate to the scale and scope of Russia's threat to our interests and our allies. Addressing this problem has required billions of dollars in new investments to enhance our deterrent posture in Europe; in other words, American taxpayers, quite literally, paid the price for the strategic mistake of withdrawing from Europe, supported by Congressman Mulvaney. In 2011, Congressman Mulvaney voted for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan. I repeat that. This is not a typographical error. In 2011, Congressman Mulvaney voted for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Congressman Mulvaney voting to abandon America's mission to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for terrorists to attack our homeland as they did on September 11, is disturbing enough, but Congressman Mulvaney's testimony during his confirmation hearing that he did so at the urging of a single constituent, with no apparent regard for the national security consequences, leaves me with serious doubts about his judgment on matters of national security. Beyond matters of defense and national security policy, I am also concerned about Congressman Mulvaney's support for reckless budget strategies that led to a government shutdown. He made frequent attempts to diminish the impact of the shutdown by referring to it as a ``government slowdown,'' or the more Orwellian term, ``temporary lapse in appropriations.'' There are few people whose views and record are more representative of the dysfunction that has gripped Washington for the last several years than that attitude. Over my 30 years in the Senate, I have shown great deference to Presidents of both parties in selecting members of their Cabinet, but I cannot on this nominee. My decision to oppose this nomination is not about one person. It is not about one Cabinet position. This is not personal. This is not political. This is about principle. This is about my conviction as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee that providing for the common defense is our highest constitutional duty and that rebuilding our military must be the No. 1 priority of the Congress and the White House. I will vote to oppose Congressman Mulvaney's nomination because it would be irresponsible to place the future of the defense budget in the hands of a person with such a record and judgment on national security. This is the beginning, not the end, of the fight to rebuild our military. I will continue to stand on principle as this body considers a budget resolution for the coming fiscal year and Defense authorization bill and a Defense appropriations bill, and I will continue to stand on principle in fighting to bring a full repeal of the Budget Control Act's discretionary spending caps to the floor of the Senate. For 6 years now, Washington dysfunction has imposed very real consequences on the thousands of Americans serving in uniform and sacrificing on our behalf all around the Nation and the world. From Afghanistan to Iraq and Syria, to the heart of Europe, to the seas of Asia, our troops are doing everything we ask of them. It is time for those of us in this body to do all we can for them. So long as I serve as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, it is my pledge to do just that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the rules governing the procedure of the Committee on Armed Services have not changed for the 115th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Reed, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in fond memory of Robert Justin Stevens, a former staffer of mine who recently passed away-- entirely too young--after a long, arduous fight with cancer. Justin was exemplary in his desire to serve and his love for public policy and politics. He was a dedicated public servant who worked tirelessly to improve the lives of Americans. Over the last few years, Justin managed Federal policy and advocacy for homeland security, public safety, and military-related issues as legislative director with the National Governors Association. Before that, Justin worked with me, and later with Senator Scott Brown, as a professional staff member at the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security. There, he helped us to identify and address waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending and financial improvement, audit readiness, and business transformation at our Federal agencies. During my 2008 Presidential campaign, Justin served as a senior advance team lead. It was in that context that I was first introduced to Justin's boundless love of life and energy. Justin also served as the director for candidate operations and advance for the Scott Brown for Senate 2012 campaign; a financial systems analyst with the EMCOR Group; and a Navy/NASA university faculty fellowship program manager with the American Society for Engineering Education, ASEE. Justin never took his young life for granted. An avid runner and adventurous soul, Justin sought to improve himself by taking courses in furtherance of a master's in national security and strategic studies at the U.S. Naval War College, after having received a B.S. in business administration from the University of Florida and graduated East Lake High School. Also, unbowed by his continuing struggle with cancer and always filled with hope, Justin married the love of his life, Elizabeth. Justin will be forever remembered for the joy he brought to the lives of his family, friends, and colleagues with his humor, energy, and selflessness. Throughout his young life, Justin always made sure that those closest to him knew how important they were to him. Cindy and I extend our warmest condolences to Justin's wife, Elizabeth; his mother Jean Nowakowski; his stepmother Karen Stevens, with whom Justin was exceptionally close; his siblings Bryan and Damon; his niece Magdalena and nephew Jackson. Thank you.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to support Dr. David Shulkin's nomination for Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, faces massive challenges in delivering care to our veterans, but I believe that Dr. Shulkin is well equipped for the task at hand. Dr. Shulkin has committed to fully implementing the Veterans Choice Program as Secretary and will work to expand this program to provide a network that meets the needs of veterans, their families, and providers in the community--every veteran deserves access to care, whether that be at the VA or in the community. Through the Veterans Choice Program, we have seen more than 7 million appointments made for veterans in their communities, a network expanded by 350,000 providers and over 1.5 million veterans that have benefitted from using the Choice Card. I will seek to build and expand upon this progress and look to Dr. Shulkin's support for legislation that would bring care in the community under an integrated and coordinated system that utilizes a Veterans Choice Card. This will ensure access to timely, flexible, and quality care that our veterans have earned and deserve. I believe that Dr. Shulkin is the person that can repair the culture of the VA to focus on the veteran and restore honesty and accountability to the Department. I thank him for accepting this challenge to serve our Nation and look forward to working with him in the days ahead. Thank you.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last week, we celebrated the 100th birthday of an American for whom my family and I have always had the greatest personal respect and admiration: ADM Lloyd R. ``Joe'' Vasey. Joe Vasey was my father's dear friend and comrade for so many years. As he marks a century of life well lived, I send him the warmest wishes and convey to him thanks of a grateful nation for embodying the very finest qualities of patriotism and for his constant service to a cause greater than himself. From the Naval Academy to dangerous duty in the Second World War to five commands at sea to service in the highest councils of military command, Joe Vasey's was a most distinguished and honorable Navy career. But he did not believe that his retirement from active duty relieved him of the responsibilities of patriotism. He continued to serve the national interest by founding the Pacific Forum to promote security and stability in the critically important Asia-Pacific region. The only elaboration of this illustrious life I can offer are reminiscences of a friendship, some of which I was privileged to personally observe, which for me served as emblematic of a tradition; that of service as an officer in the U.S. Navy and the bonds of respect and love that unite good officers in shared sacrifice and devotion to their service and their country. It is the tradition upon which, in the most difficult moments of my life, I relied for the strength to persevere for my country's honor and for my self-respect. Very late in his life, my father was interviewed for an oral history of our officers in the post-World War II Navy. ``There's a term which has slipped somewhat into disuse,'' he remarked in the interview, ``which I always used to the moment I retired, and that is the term: an officer and a gentleman.'' Had my father been asked to identify a contemporary who personified the virtues he considered essential to the life of an officer and a gentleman, I have no doubt he would have thought first of his friend Joe Vasey. My father's respect and affection for Joe Vasey was unlimited. Their friendship was forged in the crucible of war and strengthened to last a lifetime by their shared experiences aboard the USS Gunnel as it prowled the Pacific from Midway to Nagasaki in search of the enemy. And find them they did. On one occasion, the ship sank a Japanese freighter and destroyer, but was then forced to submerge for 36 hours while avoiding Japanese depth charges. With the temperature on the submarine reaching 120 degrees and oxygen running low, my father decided to surface and try to fight the remaining Japanese ships. But he offered his torpedo officer, Joe Vasey, and the rest of his officers the option to abandon ship. To a man, they agreed with my father and rejected that course. When the Gunnel surfaced, its weary crew found the Japanese destroyers had given up and were steaming away. My father, Joe Vasey, and their comrades lived to fight another day. My father and Joe Vasey were proud veterans of an epic war. They never felt the need to exaggerate their experiences, extraordinary as they were. But they did talk about the lessons of leadership they learned and how they could be applied to new circumstances. And they had many occasions to do so. They were together when my father became commander-in-chief of Pacific Command during the Vietnam war and Admiral Vasey served as his most trusted adviser as head of strategic plans and policies. They were together when they argued to Washington for a strategy to win the war rather than just continue the bleeding. And they were together when my father gave orders for B-52s to bomb the city in which his son was held a prisoner of war. They were the best of friends and exemplified that noblest of traditions: brothers in arms. I count myself immeasurably fortunate to have benefited from their example early in life so that I could derive the strength I needed to survive later misfortune from their stories, their courage, and their honor. So to Joe Vasey, a great patriot, a good man, an officer and a gentleman, and a brave defender of this Nation, I wish a very happy birthday, fair winds, and following seas.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last week I was heartbroken to learn that a dear friend and great fighter for freedom, Vladimir Kara-Murza, had been hospitalized in Moscow. Those of us who know the work of this brave Russian patriot could not afford to hope or assume that he was suffering some ordinary illness. Just 2 years ago, under mysterious circumstances, Vladimir grew very ill and fell into a coma. Many suspected he was poisoned, to intimidate him or worse. That is why last week's news signaled another shadowy strike against a brilliant voice who has defied the tyranny of Putin's Russia. Many Americans are not familiar with the life of Vladimir Kara-Murza, but it is one that reflects the best qualities of leadership, courage, selflessness, idealism and patriotism, and it is a life dedicated to the principles we all hold dear: truth and justice, freedom and fairness, human rights and human dignity. All his life, Vladimir has been a brave, outspoken, and relentless champion for the Russian people. He is a deputy leader of the People's Freedom Party, Russia's leading pro-democracy party. He is a leading coordinator of Open Russia, a foundation that promotes civil society and democracy in Russia. In 2011, he helped mobilize the largest anti- Kremlin demonstration since the early 1990s, leading tens of thousands of Russians to march in protest of widespread fraud and corruption in the parliamentary elections. In the United States, Vladimir was one of the most passionate and effective advocates for passage of the Magnitsky Act, legislation that gives the Federal Government powers to punish human rights violators in Russia. Most recently he has eloquently and persuasively campaigned to expand the Act to impose sanctions on those Russians journalists who were so cowed and corrupted by the Kremlin that they become indispensable to propagating the lies and atmosphere of hate, fear, and violence the Putin regime relies on to maintain power. Vladimir's family has a long history of heroism for years, dating back to the early 1900s. Vladimir once described the experience of visiting the KGB archives in Moscow where he reviewed the thin file on his great grandfather who was executed. It contained the scant evidence required for a death sentence in Stalin's Russia. He recalled the weight that fell upon him when he read the modest document to which the executioners affixed the date and their signatures to signify that the judgment had been carried out. Vladimir also learned what it takes to be a revolutionary from our mutual friend Boris Nemtsov. Vladimir and Boris struggled together for years in the cause of freedom and democracy. Vladimir once called Boris the best President Russia never had. Boris was one of the first to warn of the incoming Putin dictatorship, even when many of his fellow liberals could not see it. He told the truth about Putin's reign of terror, rampant corruption, and his illegal invasion of Ukraine. For the crime of telling the truth in Putin's Russia, Boris Nemtsov was murdered in the shadow of the Kremlin in 2015. He died a martyr. He died a martyr for the rights of people who were taught to hate him but who will one day mourn his death, revere his memory, and despise his murderers. After Boris's assassination, many urged Vladimir not to return to Russia. He had every reason not to. He knew his own family's history with tyranny. He knew what happened to Boris Nemtsov, and he knew all too well about the culture of impunity that Putin has created in Russia, where individuals are routinely persecuted and attacked for their beliefs, including by the Russian Government, and no one is ever held responsible. He knew about Sergei Yushenkov, who was investigating the Kremlin's potential role in the 1999 apartment bombings in Russia when he was shot and killed at the entrance of his apartment. He knew about American journalist Paul Klebnikov, who was investigating Russian Government connections to organized crime when he was shot to death in Moscow in 2004. He knew about Anna Politkovskaya, a journalist, human rights activist, and fierce critic of Putin's brutal war in Chechnya, who was murdered in the stairwell of her apartment building on Putin's birthday in 2006. He knew about former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, who exposed the Putin regime's massive corruption tied to organized crime and involving assassination and murder. He was poisoned to death in 2006 with a radioactive isotype in a brazen act of nuclear terrorism. He knew about Sergei Magnitsky, that most unlikely of heroes in the cause of freedom, the humble tax attorney who blew the whistle on tax fraud and large-scale theft by Russian Government officials, only to be charged with their crimes and die in a squalid cell inside the prison that once held the political opponents of the Czars and the Soviets. In short, Vladimir knew that Putin is a killer--and he is a killer. He might very well be the next target. Vladimir knew that there was no moral equivalence between the United States and Putin's Russia. I repeat: There is no moral equivalence between that butcher and thug and KGB colonel and the United States of America, the country that Ronald Reagan used to call a shining city on a hill. To allege some kind of moral equivalence between the two is either terribly misinformed or incredibly biased. Neither can be accurate in any way. Knowing all this, knowing that his life was at risk, Vladimir returned to Russia. He continued to speak truth to power. He kept faith with his ideals and was in confrontation with a cruel and dangerous autocracy. He kept faith honorably and bravely with the example of his friend and comrade Boris Nemtsov. Now it appears that Vladimir has once again paid the price for his gallantry and integrity, for placing the interests of the Russian people before his own self-interest. He is very ill, but I am encouraged to learn his condition is now stable. So today, speaking for so many Americans, I offer my most heartfelt prayers for the recovery of Vladimir Kara-Murza and for the success of the cause to which he has dedicated his life: truth and justice for the Russian people. And I do so with the confidence Vladimir himself once expressed: ``I am sure that in the end, we will win, because even when dictators prevail for some time, sooner or later, freedom wins.'' I thank my colleague from Illinois for his indulgence. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his courtesy. I think this will take about 7 or 8 minutes, I would say to my colleague from Illinois. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in fond memory of Robert Justin Stevens, a former staffer of mine who recently passed away-- entirely too young--after a long, arduous fight with cancer. Justin was exemplary in his desire to serve and his love for public policy and politics. He was a dedicated public servant who worked tirelessly to improve the lives of Americans. Over the last few years, Justin managed Federal policy and advocacy for homeland security, public safety, and military-related issues as legislative director with the National Governors Association. Before that, Justin worked with me and later with Senator Scott Brown as a professional staff member at the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security. There, he helped us to identify and address waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending and financial improvement, audit readiness, and business transformation at our Federal agencies. During my 2008 Presidential campaign, Justin served as a senior advance team lead. It was in that context that I was first introduced to Justin's boundless love of life and energy. Justin also served as the director for candidate operations and advance for the Scott Brown for Senate 2012 campaign; a financial systems analyst with the EMCOR Group; and a Navy/NASA University Faculty Fellowship program manager with the American Society for Engineering Education, ASEE. Justin never took his young life for granted. An avid runner and adventurous soul, Justin sought to improve himself by taking courses in furtherance of a master's in national security and strategic studies at the U.S. Naval War College, after having received a B.S. in business administration from the University of Florida and graduating East Lake High School. Also, unbowed by his continuing struggle with cancer and always filled with hope, Justin married the love of his life, Elizabeth. Justin will be forever remembered for the joy he brought to the lives of his family, friends, and colleagues with his humor, energy, and selflessness. Throughout his young life, Justin always made sure that those closest to him knew how important they were to him. Cindy and I extend our warmest condolences to Justin's wife, Elizabeth; his mother, Karen; his stepmother, Jean Nowakowski, with whom Justin was exceptionally close; his siblings, Bryan and Damon; his niece, Magdalena and nephew Jackson.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the new Director of the CIA must focus on uncovering facts about the many complex national security threats confronting our Nation. Now is the time to turn the page on our discussions of old programs and activities, which we have thoroughly reviewed and addressed. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 included a provision to apply the Army Field Manual's interrogation requirements to all U.S. agencies, including the CIA. Congressman Mike Pompeo voted for that law. During both our personal conversations and his confirmation hearing, Congressman Pompeo has repeatedly committed to me that he will comply with the law as Director of CIA. He also committed to me that if, after talking to professional officers of the CIA, he has any recommendations for changing the law or updating current guidelines, he will present those recommendations to the Congress. I have no reason to doubt Congressman Pompeo's word, and I fully support his confirmation. Going forward, I will continue to closely monitor this issue and use my oversight powers to ensure the law is obeyed.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor an American hero, Navy Seal Charles Keating IV, who died in service to his country. On January 13, 2017, the Navy awarded its highest honor, the Navy Cross, to CPO Charles Keating IV for heroism demonstrated in combat against the Islamic State in northern Iraq. Our Nation lost a great patriot and American hero in Charles, who was only 31 when he succumbed to injuries sustained during an attack on his team. Charles, a Navy SEAL special warfare operator chief petty officer, was part of a quick reaction force that was called upon to aid U.S. military forces and Kurdish Peshmerga allies when they came under heavy fire by a large force of Islamic State fighters north of Mosul. Tragically, we lost Charles on May 3, 2016. Charles enlisted in the Navy in 2007, leaving Indiana University where he was a long-distance runner. He went on to graduate from the basic underwater demolition/SEAL training in 2008, joining an elite group. He served one tour in Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and two tours in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Previously awarded the Silver Star for his actions in the line of duty, Chief Keating was awarded the Navy Cross posthumously for his demonstration of extraordinary heroism and valor when he was the decisive repellant of an overwhelming enemy force, assuring the lives of his team and coalition counterparts. According to his award citation: Keating's courageous leadership, tactical acumen, and physical courage were the key factors in defeating an assault on friendly lines by more than 100 enemy fighters. He continually exposed himself to enemy automatic weapon, mortar, and rocket propelled grenade fire as he diligently maneuvered between fighting positions to stop enemy advances. The enemy then attempted to flank his position with a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device. At great personal risk, Chief Keating led a team into the open to intercept and neutralize the rapidly closing VBIED threat with precise sniper and rocket fire. His personal bravery throughout the engagement inspired his comrades to vigorously defend their position and repel the enemy's assault. Nowadays, the words ``hero'' and ``heroism'' are used so often that they tend to lose some of their meaning. For this reason, it is so very important that we identify heroism and honor heroes when they truly present themselves. There can be no greater hero among us than those like Chief Keating, who gave their lives for their fellow man in support of ideals greater than their own self-interest. With this in mind, I ask my fellow Members of Congress to join me as we honor the life of Navy SEAL Special Warfare Operator Chief Petty Officer Charles Keating IV and his legacy, who will stand forever in our memory as an illustrious example of each and every man and woman in our Armed Forces and those in harm's way supporting them, who give the ultimate selfless sacrifice in service to our great country.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask for 1 minute on the nomination.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I know it is unnecessary, but I urge an ``aye'' vote on General Kelly. He is experienced. He is talented. He understands borders. He understands the challenges we face for our national security throughout the world. I strongly urge an ``aye'' vote for General Kelly.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there is not a lot of benefit in being around here for a long period of time, but I remember very well in January of 2009, when the new President of the United States and, in a spirit of enthusiasm and bipartisanship, the Senate, on the first day of the inauguration, approved of seven Cabinet members, seven--not two, as we are presently contemplating, but seven. All of those individuals, as I recall, had some degree of concern about them, had some degree of controversy--some more, some less. But the fact is, we moved forward and almost unanimously voted in favor of these Cabinet members for the simple reason that the American people had spoken, and we had a new President of a different party, and we ought to give that President the team that he needed in order to get his job done. Now, the one difference between what I have seen here in 2017, since 2009, is that the world is on fire. Look at the world today, and look at a map of it in 2009. There weren't 6 million refugees out of Syria. There weren't 400,000 people murdered by Bashar al-Assad with the assistance of Vladimir Putin and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. We didn't have Russians using precision-guided weapons, striking hospitals in Aleppo, slaughtering innocent men, women, and children. We didn't have the Chinese acting in the most belligerent fashion in the South China Sea, asserting their sovereignty over an international waterway through which about 60 percent of the world's economy moves, as they are now. We didn't have Vladimir Putin invading Crimea in a violation of the Budapest agreement, in which Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons arsenal in exchange for a guarantee of the territorial integrity of Ukraine that included Crimea. We didn't have Vladimir Putin invading the land of Ukraine and partitioning it and slaughtering some 10,000 brave Ukrainians who stood up against that invasion while, by the way, we wouldn't even give them lethal weapons to defend themselves. We have a world on fire. And we have a nominee to be the Director of the CIA. I happen to know Congressman Pompeo very well. I happen to admire his work. I happened to notice in the hearing that there was really relatively no controversy associated with his candidacy, with his nomination to be the Director of the CIA. So my question to my dear friends on the other side of the aisle is: Why the hell won't we just go ahead and give the President his national security team when we need it more than at any time in recent history? The American people have spoken about who they want to be Commander in Chief. Now let's give the Commander in Chief his Secretary of Defense, his Secretary of Homeland Security, and let's give him a leader of our intelligence community, the CIA. And, by God, when you look at the controversy surrounding our intelligence agencies--which is gigantic--we need a new Director of the CIA more than ever. The American people made a decision, but they also voiced--at least in my campaign, and I can only speak, frankly, for my own--a great dissatisfaction about the fact that we don't work together, the fact that we don't sit down and talk about these things and get some kind of working arrangement. Well, how do you do that when we won't even allow a noncontroversial nominee for the Director of the CIA to be confirmed? I don't get it. What is the point here? Is the point that we are just going to show the Republicans by slow-walking their nominees? Is that what the point of this is? If it is, then in my view, you are contradicting the will of the American people and the verdict of the American people. I know there is controversy about the fact that Secretary Clinton got a larger number of the popular vote. I know the controversy that there were narrow victories in some of the States. But the fact is that no one in their right mind has challenged the fact that the President of the United States, whose inauguration took place today, is the President of the United States. So why would we want to--right out of the box, right out of the box, right immediately, at an incredibly controversial time--block a member of his Cabinet who needs to take charge with the confidence of the U.S. Senate that he will do a job and, frankly, restore--whether you happen to like the outgoing team or not. And if you want to praise them, fine; if you want to support them, fine. But the fact is, there is a huge controversy about our intelligence community. In fact, some of that, in my view, has been contributed to by the now-President of the United States with his comments about the intelligence community. But on both sides of the aisle, we respect and admire Congressman Pompeo, who is well qualified. Is there anyone who has said he is not qualified? Is there anyone on the other side who said that Pompeo is not qualified; we haven't examined his record enough? I don't think so. If so, I haven't heard it. But is the message now: We are just going to slow-walk the Republicans because we don't like the outcome of the election? I don't think that is the message that I would like to send from our side. Have we, on our side, slow-walked from time to time? Have we done everything right? I am not defending everything that we have done on this side. But I do argue that, in January of 2009, we confirmed seven members of the President's team on the first day.

Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield for a question.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be yielded an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would just like to say to my friend from Texas, our leader, that there is enormous controversy about our intelligence community overall. Questions have been raised going all the way back to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, questions about what we know or don't know about Russian involvement in the last election. It seems to me that all of the things that the Senator from Texas just said argue for a rapid transition to a person we all trust. I would ask the Senator from Texas very quickly: Has he heard someone who objects to Congressman Pompeo assuming the role of Director of the CIA?

Mr. McCAIN. Respectfully and with high regard, I would just ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--let's get this intelligence team to work. Let's put them together. We will have outstanding individuals in a time when, in the view of most observers, this Nation is in greater peril than it has been in 70 years. This is a very, very serious situation we find ourselves in. The people have spoken. Let's confirm them today. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me just say to my colleagues that I have had the great honor in my life of knowing some outstanding military leaders. I consider it one of the highlights of my life being around one of these great leaders. I want to share with my colleagues that I haven't seen a finer leader, a more outstanding and respected leader, and a more beloved leader than the man we are going to be voting on to be the Secretary of Defense, James Mattis. My friends, I am very confident that when we finish this vote, the morale all over the U.S. military will go up because they will know they have a leader and a leader they can not only respect but they admire and in many cases have great affection for. So I urge my colleagues to vote aye on the Mattis nomination. Mr. President, today on the steps of this Capitol, our Nation completed another peaceful transition of power and inaugurated a new President. This is a sacred rite of our democracy, one that so many have given their lives to make possible. And as free citizens, we should count ourselves fortunate to have witnessed it. As our new Commander In Chief assumes the awesome responsibilities of his office and with threats to our national security growing in scope and severity, it is imperative that the Senate act quickly to provide advice and consent for the new cabinet, especially for the new Secretary of Defense. Have no doubt: our adversaries will test us in the coming days and weeks. And when they do, I want our Commander In Chief to have Gen. James Mattis at his side. I have had the privilege of knowing General Mattis for many years. He is, without a doubt, one of the finest military officers of his generation and an extraordinary leader who inspires a rare and special admiration of his troops. In fact, since his selection to be our next Secretary of Defense, I have received countless messages of support from those who had the honor of serving with him. At his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Mattis demonstrated exceptional command of the issues confronting the United States, the Department of Defense, and our military servicemembers. He also showed that his understanding of civil-military relations is deep and that his commitment to civilian control of the Armed Forces is ironclad. Over more than four decades of service, General Mattis's character, judgment, and commitment to defending our Nation and our Constitution have earned him the trust of Presidents, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and so many serving in our Armed Forces. That is why the Senate Armed Services Committee approved General Mattis's nomination this Wednesday with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 26 to 1. I hope the Senate will follow suit with a strong vote to put General Mattis to work at the Pentagon. America will be fortunate to have General Mattis at her service once again.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I object. It is time for the vote.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would say that I also agree. I want to thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his leadership, and I want to thank him for setting the tenor and the environment that surrounds the Armed Services Committee, which resulted in the 24-to-3 vote today in the Armed Services Committee. Because of the relationship that we have, but also because of his leadership, we have a very bipartisan committee, which is vital to maintain, considering the awesome responsibilities we hold. The Senator from Rhode Island has displayed time after time a willingness to work together for the good of the country. I think this is the latest example, even though he had significant reservations-- which are valid--concerning the short period of transition from wearing the uniform to holding down the highest civilian position as far as defense of the Nation is concerned. I know he didn't reach this conclusion without a lot of thought, a lot of study, a lot of--as he has displayed--references to history; reasons for the origination of this legislation, which requires 7 years before an individual is eligible to be Secretary of Defense after leaving the military. So I just wanted to thank the Senator from Rhode Island, and I look forward to an overwhelming vote. Mr. President, could I ask the parliamentary situation as it is right now.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, has a time been set for the vote?