John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the objections raised by my colleague from Arizona, Senator Jeff Flake, concerning the 2016 Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, conference agreement. I must express my dissatisfaction with the WRDA conference agreement. While I applaud the hard work by the conferees to advance a number of worthwhile flood control projects--some of which are located in my home State of Arizona--my objection centers around the inclusion of a massive drought relief package for California at the expense of drought priorities for Arizona. For the past 2 years, Senator Flake and I have been negotiating with the committees of jurisdiction and certain offices of the California delegation to ensure that any drought legislation that comes to the Senate floor would be applicable to all Western States. We won provisions in the Senate-passed WRDA bill and the energy bill to expedite salt cedar removal and increase storage capacity for reservoirs across the West. Unfortunately, our WRDA provisions have been stripped by the conferees. I cannot support a drought package that is overly California-centric while my home State and other Western States are also suffering under an oppressive 16-year drought.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to pay tribute to my dear friend and colleague, the Senator from New Hampshire, Kelly Ayotte. I first met Kelly in 2010 when I joined her for a townhall meeting in Nashua, NH. My affection for the State of New Hampshire dates back to my bid for President in 2000, so it was a familiar setting to join so many old friends in support of her campaign for the U.S. Senate. I was impressed with Senator Ayotte's deep understanding of the top challenges facing the country, the seriousness with which she approached her work, and the ease with which she engaged with members of the audience, gracefully handling spirited debates and sparring matches with voters--a staple of the townhall meetings in New Hampshire I always admired. I knew then we would be fast friends. In the Senate, Senator Ayotte brought the same tenacity to her work, distinguishing herself as a rising star in the Republican Party and a leader willing to work across party lines to get things done. Senator Ayotte has approached every issue candidly and pragmatically--something that is all too often lacking in politics today. ``I call them like I see them,'' she once said. ``And that means not just with the opposing party, but with my own party.'' Senator Ayotte took this mantra on the road, continuing the tradition of the New Hampshire townhall meetings by holding more than 50 townhall meetings in small towns and cities across New Hampshire, where she spoke directly with her constituents about the issues impacting their families. But, in my view, Senator Ayotte's best work lies in her contribution to defense and national security as a member of the Armed Services Committee. Coming from a military family, her commitment to strengthening our Armed Forces is deeply personal. That has contributed to her tireless advocacy on issues important to New Hampshire, to Pease Air National Guard Base, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, and to all military and civilian personnel supporting our national security who call New Hampshire home. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, Senator Ayotte has called attention to the dangerous readiness crisis and has been a consistent advocate for making sure the men and women of our Armed Forces have the resources they need to defend the Nation. She has authored numerous legislative proposals to eliminate wasteful and duplicative spending in the Department of Defense so that we can reinvest the savings in rebuilding our military. She passed legislation to save over $1 billion in the Pentagon's budget and to keep U.S. tax dollars out of the hands of America's enemies. She has been a leading advocate for repealing arbitrary budget cuts and the mindless mechanism of sequestration which continues to weaken our military and puts the lives of our servicemembers at greater risk. Senator Ayotte's fight to prevent the Air Force from mothballing the A-10 Warthog attack planes showed the very best she has to offer. As the wife of a retired A-10 pilot who flew combat missions in Iraq and an expert in defense policy, Senator Ayotte understood the critical role this aircraft plays in providing close air support for our fighting men and women. Year after year, she led the fight to prevent the Obama administration from following through on its plan to retire that fleet, pushing through measures in annual Defense authorization bills that would prevent any premature divestment of this aircraft. At the end of the day, she was right. The Air Force conceded to this aircraft's value and reversed its decision, delaying any divestment until at least 2022. Anyone who has watched Senator Ayotte question a witness in the Armed Services Committee will not be surprised to learn of her background as New Hampshire's first female attorney general. I have been a fortunate observer of more than one occasion in which a bureaucrat withered under skilled cross-examination by Senator Ayotte. She takes her oversight role extremely seriously and believes in holding our Nation's leaders accountable. In every way, Senator Ayotte rose to meet the responsibilities and opportunities of her office. There are many qualities that are important to being a good Senator, but none, in my opinion, is more important than standing firm for what you believe. That is what Senator Ayotte has done. She has never wavered in her commitment to principle, and this body is better for it. On a more personal note, I have cherished the friendship and partnership of Senator Kelly Ayotte. The kindness and courtesy she has extended to her colleagues has made this institution a better place, and her principled leadership has served as an example to all of us. In Kelly, you could always find a warm smile that served as a reminder that serving here is truly a joy and a privilege. While I will miss Kelly's presence in the Senate, I will continue to rely on her wise counsel and friendship, and I am confident our Nation will continue to benefit from her talents for many years to come. With this in mind, I thank my dear friend and valued colleague, Senator Kelly Ayotte, for her service to the Nation and this body. And until the Nation calls on her again, I wish her and her husband Joe and their children, Katherine and Jacob, fair winds and following seas.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in addressing a few thoughts directly to the occupant of the chair, to commend his long and honorable service to the United States and to thank him for his friendship. Mr. President--I know how much you enjoy my calling you Mr. President--you and I have served together in this body for three decades. We have been friends for almost 40 years, since I was the Navy Senate liaison and used to carry your bags on overseas trips. I joked recently that I resented it ever since. But that was part of my job description--escorting and handling logistics for Senate codels, including making certain everyone's luggage arrived at our destinations. Back then, some Senators, unlike the 100 egalitarians who occupy the Senate today, could be a little haughty and high-handed. A few held an exalted opinion of themselves that exceeded the esteem with which their colleagues and constituents held them in. If they paid any attention to staff, it was only because we had annoyed them somehow. But not my friend Joe Biden--he was fair and courteous to everyone, even people who did not always deserve it. He is always an example of how a powerful person with character and class treats anyone in a subordinate position. He treats them with humility, as God's children, with dignity equal to his own. In the book ``The Nightingale's Song,'' the late journalist Bob Timberg wrote about one military liaison officer, escorting a codel to Athens, who joined some of the Members in a tavern for a little after- hours merriment and was later observed dancing on a tabletop with Senator Biden's lovely wife, Jill. I don't recall witnessing such an event myself, and I can't testify to it having actually happened. Neither can I imagine the temerity of that rascal, whoever he was. He was lucky the Senator whose spouse he made endure awkward moves he euphemistically called ``dancing'' was Joe Biden. Few other Senators would have seen the humor in it. Many years have passed since we shared those adventures, and many events have transpired, personal and public, that enriched our lives with the rewards and disappointments, blessings and challenges. We were still young when we came to the Senate. We are old men now. Although you can't tell from looking at us, the Vice President is actually a little younger than me, though we both passed the Biblical threescore and ten. This place, the Senate, has been central to both of our lives. Here we work together on our country's challenges. Here we fought and argued over the country's direction. Here we compromised and joined forces to serve the public interest. Here we watched history made and made our small contributions to it. Neither of us is the shy and retiring type. We both have been known to hold a strong opinion or two. When circumstances warrant, we would rather make our points emphatically then elliptically. I know that Joe appreciates the adage that I have tried to follow in my public life: a fight not joined is a fight not enjoyed. When we have had differences of opinions over the years, we have managed to make our positions crystal clear to each other, perhaps in the persistent triumph of hope over experience. We both still cling to the expectation that we can persuade the other that he is mistaken. I think deep down we probably know better. In addition to being regularly mistaken, here is what I have also known about my friend and occasionally sparring partner. He is a good and decent man, God-fearing and kind, a devoted father and husband, a genuine patriot who puts our country before himself. I know, too, that it has been a great privilege to call him my friend. Mr. President, if I haven't made clear to you over these many years how much I appreciated your friendship and have admired you, I beg your forgiveness. We both have been privileged to know Members of this body who were legends in their own time and are remembered as important historical figures. But I haven't known one who was a better man than you. You are an exemplary public servant, a credit to your family, to the Senate, and to the country. On behalf of the country and the Senate, thank you for your lifetime service to America. Thank you for your example of how to represent your constituents with honor and humility and how to remain the same good guy that you were when you first got here. Thank you, most of all, for your friendship. My life and the lives of many have been enriched by it. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the accomplishments of General Raheel Sharif and to express my gratitude to him upon his retirement as Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff. General Sharif has been a vital partner for the United States in the battle against terrorism. Since taking office in November 2013, General Sharif has continued to target terrorists operating within the borders of Pakistan. He has carried the fight to the northwest frontier provinces of Pakistan, as well as promised to eliminate safe havens for terrorists from the country completely. In taking these actions, General Sharif has demonstrated that fighting against extremist groups is firmly in the national security interests of Pakistan. General Sharif comes from a military family, with a long tradition of patriotism and service to country. Among his many brave military family members, his older brother Major Rana Shabbir Sharif, who was killed in action, is regarded as the most decorated officer of the Pakistan Army, having received the three most coveted awards of the Army, and is fondly addressed as the army's ``Superman.'' This is a legacy difficult to live up to, but General Sharif has done so, honoring his brother and family's service, and continuing to serve and protect his country and its institutions. Since taking on the role of Chief of Army Staff, General Sharif has been at the forefront of fighting the Taliban and other terrorist groups inside Pakistan. In 2014, he initiated the launch of Operation Zarb-e-Azb in North Waziristan, a tribal area along the Afghanistan- Pakistan border where militants had operated with impunity for decades. This operation didn't eliminate every terrorist, nor has it denied safe haven to many who continue to operate from Pakistan. But it has led to security improvements in the country, and this area is now safer than ever before. And importantly, the Pakistani Army is continuing to secure the gains it has achieved by building roads, border posts, schools, and healthcare facilities across North Waziristan to promote economic development and give citizens a more prosperous and peaceful future. In the south, General Sharif also took on the task of clearing Karachi, one of Pakistan's largest cities, of an array of terrorist organizations, criminal groups, and even political corruption. The results were equally impressive, leading to a dramatic decline in militant attacks and ending the kind of targeted killings, kidnappings for ransom, and extortion that had become a feature of life in the city. Much of the credit for the success of these operations is due to General Sharif and the service and sacrifice of tens of thousands of Pakistani soldiers who followed his lead. What was remarkable about General Sharif was not only the commitment he demonstrated to rooting out terrorism, but also his efforts to improve economic development, political life, and civic services for citizens throughout the country. He recognized that failure to focus on the root causes of radicalization, including economic and political corruption, had exacerbated the growth of extremism in Pakistan, and he showed foresight in seeking to remedy both cause and effect. This is the kind of leadership that is imperative for the continued improvement of relations between the United States and Pakistan, which is important for the stability of the entire region, and for the national security of both Pakistan and the United States. But despite the progress I witnessed firsthand when I visited Pakistan this past summer, the U.S.-Pakistan relationship has become strained. Among other things, limitations on U.S. assistance to Pakistan and congressional opposition to approve funding for the sale of defense articles have added to tensions between our two governments. But even with these difficulties, U.S. and Pakistani leaders cannot allow ambivalence and suspicion to fester in our relationship. Our common interests in counterterrorism, nuclear security, and regional stability are too important and too urgent. Both sides share responsibility to improve U.S.-Pakistan relations, and the United States must continue to make clear its enduring commitment to Pakistan's stability and economic growth. As we look to the future, there remains much to be done. While Pakistan has made progress in its fight against terrorism, the Haqqani Network continues to operate within its border, increasing cross-border attacks are carried out by armed militants on neighboring countries, and political corruption has stilted economic growth. Pakistan must demonstrate that the commitment to fighting terrorism and improving conditions in the country is not dependent on a single individual. In that spirit, I look forward to working with General Qamar Javed Bajwa, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's selection to be the next Chief of Army Staff. By taking on all terrorist groups operating in its country, Pakistan will find that the United States remains willing and able to assist in this fight and develop an enduring strategic partnership. I congratulate Pakistan on carrying out a second consecutive transition of power in the military, and I wish General Sharif well as he enters a well-earned retirement. He has vowed to serve Pakistan even after his retirement, and I would expect nothing less.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the hard work the Senator from Iowa and his staff have done. The Senator and I are old friends, and I know he is one of the most zealous advocates for government oversight and reform in the Senate. I am aware of the many years of hard work he has put into this legislation. I believe we share the same goal of ensuring that inspectors general across the Federal Government have the authorities and support they need to do their vital work on behalf of the American people. At the same time, I have serious concerns about a few aspects of this regulation as written. I have been working with the Senator from Iowa. I wish to continue working with him. To tell you the truth, I say to my friend from Iowa, I don't know why we cannot reach agreement. What we are really talking about are a few words. For example, this legislation would substitute the words ``under the nominal supervision of the head of the establishment involved''-- that takes the place of the wording ``under the general supervision of the establishment involved.'' I say to my friend from Iowa, what springs to mind is, why would we want to change that wording unless there was some intent to do so? Isn't the ``general supervision of the establishment involved''--we have to have ``under the nominal supervision''? What is this wordsmithing stuff that, frankly, I can only assume has some underlying purpose? Why would you want to substitute ``under the nominal supervision'' for ``under the general supervision'' without some reason? I don't get it. There is no explanation for why this change is necessary. It is unclear what ``nominal supervision'' means. If ``nominal'' means literally ``in name only''--that is what ``nominal'' means--then it would remove the IG from the supervisory authority of the agency or department head. The legislation would impose further restrictions on the ability of the Secretary of Defense--which is the area of my responsibility--to supervise and support the inspector general of the Department of Defense, so it is a reach too far. The legislation would also restrict the President from placing an inspector general in an involuntary nonduty status, either paid or not paid, except as narrowly defined, for cause. This is likely an unconstitutional restriction on the authority of the President, who has the authority to appoint and to remove his or her own appointees. Constitutionally appointed officers serve at the pleasure of the President. Constitutionally appointed officers serve at the pleasure of the President, some subject to advice and consent of the Senate, some not. In other words, us saying what a Member of Congress can do to put someone on nonduty status is not the responsibility or the authority of the Congress of the United States. It would limit the President's authority to place an inspector general in an involuntary, paid or unpaid, nonduty status for more than 14 days, unless the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, a well-known organization, submits to the President a written recommendation for additional time, which is acted upon by the President, and the decision is communicated immediately to both Houses of Congress. That is a further restriction on Presidential power by a committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency--by the way, an organization whose existence I was unaware of. The people expect the President to have both control and responsibility over employees and officers in the executive branch, subject to advice and consent--the constitutional authorities of the Senate of the United States. It is clearly outlined in the Constitution. The people expect the President to have both control and responsibility over employees and officers in the executive branch. The Founders believed that this design ensured effective government but, most importantly, protected our liberty from rogue government agents who might accrue vast power but be responsive and responsible to no elected, accountable authority. We just saw a dramatic example of that, as I know my colleague from Iowa understands, in the Dodd-Frank legislation, which created agencies of government that have no accountability whatsoever, even to the appropriations process. The legislation would also undermine congressional oversight of the IGs. For example, with this language, a congressional investigation conducted by committees into complaints that the IG has violated whistleblower protections could be labeled as ``interfering with the independence of the IG'' if the committee is communicating with an agency or department as part of that investigation. While I appreciate the effort to provide exemptions to the Department of Defense from this legislation, that exemption only relates to certain subsections and sentences of the overall Inspector General Act. Thus, many of these new rules and requirements would apply to the Department of Defense. For example, the new ``timely access to information'' requirement is included in the legislation, but there is no exemption for DOD from that requirement. It is unclear that existing exemptions would apply. The Senate Armed Services Committee conducts a regular, stringent oversight of the Department of Defense, including its inspector general. The committee and the Congress pass defense legislation on an annual basis, and this will be the 55th year we will do so. I do not believe there is any problem at present in the DOD IG that requires the solution this legislation would require, and in the event the Senate Armed Services Committee uncovers problems in the course of our oversight work, we will address those issues in our annual authorization legislation. Look, I have great affection for my friend from Iowa. It is obvious that this issue is important to him. It is obvious he has been working on it for years. If I could make a suggestion to my friend from Iowa, let's set a time tomorrow to sit down with our staffs, find out what the problem is, see if we can get it resolved, and then that will give us 24 hours to try to resolve these issues. I understand what the Senator from Iowa is seeking and trying to do. I support the intent of that legislation. My responsibilities are oversight of the Department of Defense, the largest part of our government, and I have these concerns about it. I believe we can resolve these problems maybe with a face-to-face with our staffs's engagement. For all those reasons, I regret to tell my friend from Iowa that I object.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could I just say to my friend from Iowa that I am willing to maybe have a sit-down sometime in the next 24 hours to see if we can get this done.

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 ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN. My friend is correct. He and I were both Members of this body the day the 9/11 attacks took place as we fled the Capitol and watched the Pentagon. Of course, none of us will ever forget the horror and terror of that day, nor will we ever stint in our commitment to making sure the families of those who sacrificed their lives and were wantonly murdered on that terrible day are adequately compensated in every possible way for the tragedy--and we can never fully repay them. But it is a reality. None of us will ever forget it. But that does not mean, that cannot mean that we would endorse legislation that would hold the government of a nation responsible for an act that was committed from that country. We know that today as we speak, in Iraq, in Mosul, there are weapons factories. There are chemical weapons factories designed to attack different places in the world. I would ask my friend, if there is an attack from Mosul and lives are lost, and of course the government of Iraq doesn't know anything about it, is the government of Iraq now liable, held responsible for the actions of terrorists within their country without them knowing that those activities are taking place? Unfortunately, there are terrorist organizations in many nations throughout the world, as Al Qaeda has metastasized and terrorism has spread throughout the regions. Acts of terror are committed and innocent people are killed every single day. Does that mean the governments of those countries are to be held responsible? Obviously, I think the answer is no. What we are doing with this well intentioned legislation, which all of us are supportive of--but what we do not intend and should not intend is to hold a foreign government responsible for actions that were taken by a terrorist or terrorist organizations. We know that some of those who committed the attacks of 9/11 were Saudi citizens, but that does not then necessarily mean the Saudi Government is responsible for the actions of terrorists. Unfortunately, this legislation does not define that. That is why it is so important. There are several aspects of this legislation that need to be fixed, but the most important aspect is the phrase that says that this nation has to ``knowingly'' assist a terrorist group. If you can prove that any government was behind a terrorist attack of the United States of America, that government, that nation, should be held responsible. Those who are injured or harmed should be compensated in every possible way, but to hold a nation's government responsible for acts of terror that were taken by individuals or organizations within that country, without them even knowing about it, then that opens a Pandora's box of incredible proportions. For example, is the Government of Saudi Arabia responsible for the acts that took place on 9/11? Is the government of other Middle Eastern citizens from other Middle Eastern nations? For example, are organizations that exist within--again, I use Iraq and other countries where terrorist organizations exist, and there are many. Libya is another example. The Government of Libya is not responsible for acts of terror committed by terrorist organizations that exist and are functioning today within Libya. All the Senator from South Carolina and I are saying is, we do not in any way want to prevent the families, loved ones, and those who have suffered so much agony and pain over this horrendous and horrific attack that took place on 9/11--in fact, I am proud of our record of support of everything we could possibly do for those families, but we are going to invoke the law of unintended consequences. For example, if we are going to sue--if a nation that has significant investments in the United States of America, whether it be in the stock market or other investments, and that country knows it is going to be sued and possibly have its assets frozen, any thinking government is going to withdraw those assets so they cannot be frozen as the court proceedings go on. That is just a small example. The other example is our Middle Eastern friends doubt us. They doubt us because when the redline was crossed and we said we would act, we didn't. They doubt us when we see the rise of terrorist organizations, Al Qaeda, ISIS, and their spread. They doubt our commitment. If they believe that because of the actions of an organization or citizens from within their country they are going to be brought to court, prosecuted, sued for damages and held liable, obviously, I think their course of action would be to withdraw. We don't want our friends to withdraw from the United States of America nor do we want to see long, drawn-out legal cases which, frankly, don't benefit them nearly as much as the trial lawyers. The changes that Senator Graham and I are proposing are modest. Logically, I think you should not pursue or prosecute a government that did not knowingly--the word isn't ``abetted'' or ``orchestrated''--but knowingly stand by and assist a terrorist group. They shouldn't be dragged into our courts. If we don't fix it, our ability to defend ourselves would be undermined. I just wish to emphasize one point the Senator from South Carolina made. We have had drone strikes in many countries in the world. Pakistan is another example. All of us have supported the efforts, many of them successful, in destroying those leaders who were responsible for the deaths of American servicemen and servicewomen. It is a weapon in the war against terror, but sometimes, as in war, mistakes were made and innocent civilians were killed along with those terrorists. Does that mean the United States of America, the government, is now liable? I am afraid that some in the tort profession would view this as an opening to bring suits against the United States of America. In fact, we are already hearing that is being contemplated in some places. I hope Senator Schumer and Senator Cornyn will look at these concerns that we and our friends have, especially in the Middle East, and make these very modest modifications, which are modest in nature but of the most significant impact.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today we honor the lives of 19 courageous Granite Mountain Hotshots by celebrating the dedication of the Granite Mountain Hotshots Memorial State Park in Yarnell, AZ. I ask that this letter recognizing the occasion be printed in the Record. The material follows: U.S. Senate, November 29, 2016. Arizona State Parks and Trails, Granite Mountain Hotshots Memorial State Park, Yarnell, AZ. Dear Friends: In a proud but solemn moment for all Arizonans, today we celebrate the dedication of the Granite Mountain Hotshots Memorial State Park. The 2013 Yarnell Hill Fire was a tragedy that resulted in the lives of 19 brave and fearless Granite Mountain Hotshots. That fateful day on June 30, 2013 was the greatest loss of life for firefighters in a wildfire since 1933 and the greatest loss of firefighters in the United States since the September 11th attacks. This Memorial State Park is a most fitting tribute to these remarkable firefighters who selflessly risked their own lives to protect others and their community in the beautiful Arizona town of Yarnell. I thank Arizona State Parks and the Yarnell Hill Memorial Site Board, who made this designation possible. With this wonderful memorial, I hope the family and friends of those Hotshots who passed may find peace and comfort in this historic designation, which will forever preserve and honor the memory of these brave souls. My thoughts and prayers are with you all on this occasion, and I send best wishes for a memorable event. Sincerely, John McCain, U.S. Senator.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, 7 years ago, in a squalid cell inside the prison that once held the political opponents of the Czars and the Soviets, Sergei Magnitsky was murdered for defying the tyranny of Vladimir Putin's Russia. Many Americans are not familiar with the life of this Russian patriot, but it was one life dedicated to and ultimately sacrificed for principles that we all hold dear. Sergei Magnitsky was an unlikely hero in the cause of freedom. He didn't spend his life as a human rights activist or as an outspoken critic of the Russian Government. He was an ordinary man, but he became an extraordinary champion of justice, fairness, and the rule of law-- principles that have lost their meaning in Putin's Russia. Magnitsky was a tax attorney working for an international company that had invested in Russia. He blew the whistle on tax fraud and large-scale theft by Russian Government officials who had looted more than $230 million from the Russian state, but the Russian Government blamed the crime on Magnitsky and his company. He was thrown into one of Russia's harshest prisons without trial. Russian officials pressured Magnitsky to deny what he had uncovered, to lie and recant. He refused. He was sickened by what his government had done, and he refused to surrender principle to power. For his refusal, he was beaten and tortured. He was denied medical care. After 358 days in prison, he died in excruciating pain on November 16, 2009. He was 37 years old. Even after his death, Russian courts convicted him of tax evasion in a show trial. Sergei Magnitsky's torture and murder is an extreme example of a problem that is unfortunately all too common and widespread in Russia today--the flagrant violations of the rule of law and basic human rights committed by the Russian Government and its allies. Today I also remember my friend Boris Nemtsov, a true Russian patriot who committed his life to fighting against Putin's tyranny and corruption, and fighting for freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. In 2015, Boris was murdered on a bridge in the shadow of the Kremlin in one of the most secure parts of the Russian capital--another victim of the culture of impunity that Vladimir Putin has created in Russia, where individuals are routinely persecuted and attacked for their beliefs, including by the Russian Government, and no one, no one, is ever held responsible. It has been said that in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. My friend Boris Nemtsov was a revolutionary and, without a doubt, Sergei Magnitsky was a revolutionary. He told the truth, and he gave his life for it. That is why, when the circumstances of Magnitsky's death became known to the world, Congress acted to protect those still under attack for the crime of telling the truth in Putin's Russia. In December 2012, Congress passed and the President signed the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, which gives the Federal Government the ability to ban entry to and freeze the American assets of anyone ``responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights'' committed against whistleblowers or human rights activists in Russia. This important piece of legislation is a fitting tribute to Sergei Magnitsky, and it is a foundation on which we must continue to build. We must fully implement the Magnitsky Act by expanding its reach to more individuals who fit the criteria in the law, and we must pass the Global Magnitsky Human Rights and Accountability Act, which will provide new tools to hold perpetrators of corruption and human rights abuses accountable for their actions around the world. The Senate has already passed this legislation, and I hope the House and Senate will soon have an opportunity to send Global Magnitsky to the President's desk when we consider the conference report on the Defense authorization bill. Our message must be clear. If you violate the human rights and civil liberties of others, the United States will hold you accountable. By living up to that principle, we honor the life and memory of Sergei Magnitsky. Our Nation and free people everywhere must continue to draw strength from his example and, with that strength, renew our commitment to stand by those who carry on the fight for freedom around the world. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, here we go again. For the eighth consecutive year, Congress has failed to pass an appropriations bill for the Department of Defense on time, leaving our troops operating on a so-called ``continuing resolution.'' Now, fresh off an election where the American people were clear that they are fed up with business as usual, that is exactly what we are about to get if Congress adopts another continuing resolution that would cut resources to our troops, hamper the war against ISIL, and delay the cutting-edge equipment and reforms they need. A continuing resolution would also make the job of managing the government's largest agency even more difficult--and at the worst possible time. The Presidential transition process currently underway is difficult enough on its own, but no incoming President has ever had to inherit a Department of Defense operating under a continuing resolution--no incoming President--but this is not the time for us to break that streak. As the name suggests, a continuing resolution is supposed to continue funding the government in situations where the Congress fails to pass a regular appropriations bill. So what is the big deal about continuing last year's funding levels? Our Nation asks a lot of the men and women serving in uniform. We are asking them to defend our Nation and our interests in real time against rapidly changing threats and adaptive adversaries, but a continuing resolution would lock our military into last year's budgets and last year's priorities. Does anybody believe this year isn't greatly dissimilar from last year on the battlefield? A continuing resolution would place our troops at greater risk by forcing them to operate under an outdated budget that does not recognize the full extent of the threats they face. Worse still, a continuing resolution doesn't quite live up to its name. A continuing resolution would actually cut funds for our troops. The continuing resolution passed by Congress in September to keep funding through the end of this year cut the military's budget by $9 billion at annualized levels. Under a potential yearlong continuing resolution, our military would be short $12 billion. The incoming and elected President of the United States stated time after time that we needed to spend more money on defense; we are not taking care of the defense needs of this Nation; we are not taking care of the equipment, training, and benefits of men and women who are serving in the military; that we have the smallest Army that we have had since World War II; that we have the smallest Air Force that we have had since the end of the Korean war; that we have the smallest Navy since the end of World War I. So what are we going to do? What are we going to do in response to all that? As the conditions around the world become more chaotic, we are going to cut defense spending by $12 billion. Not only would a continuing resolution cut resources, it would leave them with the wrong mix of funding among accounts. That means the wrong kinds of money is being spent on the wrong programs because we are continuing what we did last year. Under a continuing resolution, our military would experience shortfalls in some very important areas. Training for our National Guard and Reserve troops would be at risk of falling off-track. As Vladimir Putin's Russia continues to menace our NATO allies, our military would not be able to carry out the expansion of the European Reassurance Initiative, which is essential to deterring Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. Might I add an aside, it didn't seem to get much notice that a Russian aircraft carrier, launching aircraft with airstrikes into Aleppo--my friends, that is the first time in history that Russia, generally regarded as a land power, now has sufficient ships and aircraft capability to launch attacks into Aleppo, Homs, and other parts of Syria. Guess what they are doing. They are slaughtering innocent men, women, and children. They are killing the very people whom we have armed, trained, equipped, and sent into battle. It is atrocious. A continuing resolution would put our groups at greater risk in Afghanistan and in the fight against ISIL. The President has requested a $5.8 billion emergency supplemental to cover the costs of additional troops deployed to Afghanistan and expanded operations against ISIL in Iraq and Syria, but a continuing resolution would not include any of these necessary funds which would fill a shortfall that is looming in January. Put simply, this cockamamie idea, this abrogation of our responsibilities called a continuing resolution would shortchange American troops who are putting their lives on the line in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense could have an excess of as much as $6 billion in money under a yearlong continuing resolution. However, those funds would be unusable because of restrictions on new procurement, on buying new weapons systems, and other requirements. There are restrictions on that and there is not authorization for increases in production rates. For example, we are firing off a lot of missiles. We need to replace those missiles. We need to replace the aircraft that are wearing out. We need new parts for them. None of that is possible under what is now being contemplated. Under a continuing resolution of any duration, our military would have to delay 78 new starts, 89 production increases which would affect critical programs. That includes the Ohio-class submarine replacement program, the KC-46 tanker, the Apache, the helicopters--the Black Hawk helicopters. A continuing resolution would also delay major research and development initiatives. In short, what we are contemplating--cutting funds for our troops--inhibits their ability to serve the Nation, and they are putting the men and women who are serving in the military at greater risk. Why? Why? Because we refuse to act. We who represent them, we who are supposed to be standing for them. We are not going to pass a new appropriations bill. We are just going to kick the can down the road for another 3 months or more. In other words, some may ask: If this continuing resolution delays some programs, can't we just make it up later? For some programs, perhaps, but there is one area where we cannot make up the losses of a continuing resolution, and that is readiness. We are asking our troops to be ready to defend this Nation at a moment's notice. We are asking our troops to be ready to take the fight to ISIL. We are asking our troops to be ready to deter and, if necessary, defeat aggression in Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia- Pacific. We are asking them to be ready today. But a continuing resolution would force tradeoffs that undermine readiness. In other words, they will not be able to conduct the training operations, the replacement of parts, the maintenance, all the things that go into making a ready military that is ready to fight. We are impacting them. With a continuing resolution, we are harming their ability to do that. Adding additional readiness funds later in the year would be too little, too late, just papering over our failure to give our troops the resources they need when they need it. Readiness tomorrow does not replace readiness today. Every senior leader--uniform and nonuniform at the Department of Defense--has warned Congress about the negative impact of a continuing resolution on our men and women who are serving us in the military. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has stated that ``a continuing resolution is a straitjacket'' that ``prevents us from fielding a modern, ready force in a balanced way.'' Secretary Carter said a continuing resolution ``undercuts stable planning and efficient use of taxpayer dollars.'' Commandant of the Marine Corps General Neller warned that a long-term continuing resolution ``dramatically increases risk to an already strained fiscal environment and disrupts predictability and our ability to properly plan and execute a budget and a 5-year program.'' Suppose you had a company or a corporation and that company--like most companies and corporations small and large--operate on a year-to- year basis. So you tell that company: Wait a minute. For the first 3 months of next year, you are not going to get any additional funds. You are not going to be able to plan. You are not going to be able to do what is necessary. They wouldn't stay in business. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Richardson warned that a continuing resolution would lead to wasted taxpayer dollars. Under a continuing resolution, the Navy would be forced to break up its contract actions into small pieces. Admiral Richardson warned that as a result, the Navy would not be able to ``take advantage of savings from contractors who could better manage their workload and pass on lower costs to the Navy. These redundant efforts drive additional time and cost into the system, for exactly the same output.'' Army Chief of Staff General Milley made a similar warning about waste and inefficiency resulting from budgetary uncertainty. Have no doubt, what a continuing resolution does is causes budgetary uncertainty. It is just a fact. He said: Things like multiyear contracts, developing long-term relationships with industry where they can count on us and so on--that becomes very difficult. And what ends up happening is the price per unit goes up. So it has built in inefficiency. It has built in cost overruns. It is an un-good situation. It is not good and it needs to end. General Milley is right. This madness needs to end. It is time for Congress to do its job. When it comes to doing our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense, there is no call for lazy shortcuts and shortchanging of our troops. Let's pass a Defense authorization bill as soon as we get back. Let's pass a Defense appropriations bill that gives our troops the resources, predictability, and flexibility they need and deserve. Next year, with a new President and a new Congress, let's go to work immediately on ending sequestration once and for all and returning to a strategy-driven defense budget. Let's work together on a Defense supplement that will serve as a downpayment on rebuilding military capacity, capability, and readiness that have suffered under years of budget cuts and uncertainty. This year, this Congress, let's do our jobs and pass Defense authorization and appropriations bills. This is what the American people expect of us, and it is what the men and women who serve and sacrifice on our behalf deserve from us. Almost everybody I know--except those who don't tell the truth--did not predict the result of this Presidential election. What we are finding out--much to the dismay of some and to the surprise of almost all--is that the American people, particularly in some parts of the country, are very unhappy. One of the reasons of their unhappiness is that they believe they have a Congress that doesn't work for them. They believe their elected representatives no longer have their interests uppermost. When they see continued gridlock in Congress, of course the frustration level goes up and the approval rating goes down. I haven't met anyone who approves of Congress recently who wasn't paid staff or blood relatives. So the fact is that when we kick the can down the road and do not provide the fundamental necessities for the most important obligation we have-- to defend this Nation and provide the men and women with the training, equipment, readiness, and capabilities they need--then it is no wonder the American people hold us in such low regard. So I urge my colleagues and I urge our leaders on both sides to take up the Defense authorization bill when we get back, and I think we can do that. Then let's take up the Defense appropriations bill. I have confidence in our appropriators. I don't agree with some of the things they have done, but they have carried out their duties. Why don't we move forward? Instead, for 3 months or more, we are going to put the military in a state of uncertainty--in limbo--and we will harm their ability to defend this Nation. That is not John McCain's view. It is the view of the leaders of the military to whom we entrust our men and women. So I urge my colleagues to get going. Let's get the Defense authorization bill done. We could get the Defense appropriations bill done in a matter of hours. Let's get those other appropriations bills done as well--those for the FBI, for the CIA, for our other intelligence agencies, and for those agencies of government that also are entrusted with the security of this Nation. Let's get something for them too. Let's not kick the can down the road. Let's do the people's work. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it has been the great privilege and honor of my life to represent the people of Arizona in the Senate. I am humbled that in last Tuesday's election they placed their trust in me for another term. Since I first came to this body, I have never taken that trust for granted, and I never will. I will get up every day for the next 6 years determined to work harder than the day before for the people of Arizona. Of course, mine was not the only election last Tuesday. The American people did their civic duty and chose a new President. I congratulate the President-elect. My prayers are with him and his family as he prepares to assume our Nation's highest office, and I will do all in my power to help him lead us through the many challenges confronting our Nation. This was a long and difficult national election and not always an uplifting one. I know there were many Americans who were disappointed on election night, and we have seen some of that disappointment in the protests that have taken place in several cities across the Nation. Some of those protesters have even taken to using the slogan ``Not my President.'' This is misguided. I have been on the losing side of elections before, and it is no fun. But America has only one President at a time. We do not have to agree with the President on every issue, and when we do disagree, we should express ourselves in the spirit of mutual respect that is essential for a free and democratic people. Therefore, I urge all Americans to offer our next President good will and an earnest effort to find ways to come together to make necessary compromises to grow our economy, defend our security, and leave future generations a stronger, better America. That better America is one in which we never forget that whatever our differences, we are all Americans. We must respect our common citizenship by treating each other with respect. That is why I have been so disturbed by reports of increased acts of intimidation, harassment, and even violence directed at minority, racial, and religious groups in the aftermath of this election. Prejudice and hate have no place in America. Such behavior is a betrayal of who we are as a people and all that we aspire to be. To those who have committed these disgusting acts, I repeat the words of the President-elect: Stop it. With the campaign over, it is time for all of us to go about the work the American people sent us here to do, and there is a lot of work to do. For too long, Washington has schemed, fought, and maneuvered to gain political advantage at the cost of delivering for the American people. The predictable result is that we have made little, if any, progress toward meeting the great challenges of our time and too many Americans feel left out and left behind. This election made clear that Americans are fed up with business as usual in Washington, and they want us to make progress now on solving national problems that threaten their ability to prosper and make a better life for their families. They want progress now on growing the economy and increasing their opportunities to live purposeful and satisfying lives. They want progress now to secure their families and America's interests from the dangerous threats we face overseas. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, America's national security and the men and women in uniform who protect it will be my top priorities. We have to put an end to business as usual at the Pentagon, where the largest government agency cannot pass a financial audit and where a broken acquisitions system is too often plagued by cost overruns, schedule delays, and poor performance. We have to put an end to sequestration once and for all and return to a strategy-based defense budget. It gives our servicemembers the resources, training, and equipment they need to meet current and future threats. We have to accelerate the defeat of ISIL in Iraq and Syria and continue to take the fight to radical Islamist terrorists who seek to attack our homeland. Above all, we must remain the free world's leader and stand up always and everywhere for the values that make us exceptional and to which all people are entitled: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have to reinvigorate America's alliances around the world, not discard them in favor of cynical deals with adversaries who want us to relinquish our global leadership. We have to enhance shared efforts to deter and, if necessary, defeat aggression from whatever power threatens our interests and values. Achieving these goals will require a team at the Department of Defense composed of the best people our Nation has to offer. The Senate Armed Services Committee stands ready to receive nominations from the new President. The stakes for our Nation are high. So too must be our standards. America has many challenges ahead, but none of us should despair of our present difficulties. Instead, we must believe always in the promise and greatness of America. I still do. In that spirit, my promise is this: to work as hard as I ever have; to use all my knowledge, experience, and relationships; and to work with our new President and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to solve our problems together as fellow Americans. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming, who continues to be the voice of reason and the voice for so many millions of Americans who feel betrayed by ObamaCare--who have not been given their choice of a doctor if they wanted a doctor, who have not been able to keep the policy that the President promised they would be able to keep, period. He is the voice of those fellow citizens of mine who, in all counties but one in my home State of Arizona, have one choice-- not a choice of their doctor, not a choice of their health care policy, but one, and one only. And now they are looking at as much as a 65- percent increase in the rate of their premiums beginning the next 1st of November--disgraceful. I thank the doctor. I thank my colleague and friend from Wyoming. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 30 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last night was one of the most watched political events in American history: the debate between Donald Trump and Secretary Clinton. A lot of issues were addressed or not addressed, depending on your point of view. But the stunning aspect of this, to me, is there was not a single comment about the genocide taking place in Syria as we speak--not a comment about this terrible situation, which has taken the lives of over 400,000 innocent men, women, and children in Syria, driven 6 million into refugee status, destabilized the European Union, and continues to this day in an endless flood. I think the American people deserve better than what they got last night, to be honest. So the beat goes on, the genocide goes on, and the slaughter goes on--only at an increased tempo. From today's Wall Street Journal: ``Syria Defies Calls to End Offensive.'' Of course they defy calls to end the offensive because their whole job is to take Aleppo, consolidate their control, kill off anybody who is in opposition, and then declare a cessation of hostilities once they have solidified their position and slaughtered thousands more. Whatever happened to the United States' commitment that Bashar al- Assad had to leave power? Obviously, that is not happening, and it is being abetted by our intrepid Secretary of State. But it is not the fault of the Secretary of State; it is the fault of the President of the United States. `` `It would be diplomatic malpractice' not to pursue talks, Mr. Kerry said.'' ``It would be diplomatic malpractice.'' One of the greatest diplomats that I have ever had the honor of knowing is a man by the name of George Shultz, one of the major reasons the Cold War ended and we won. I would like to give a quote in direct contradiction to Mr. Kerry's continuous quest to bend the knee and hope that Vladimir Putin will agree with him and stop the slaughter in Syria--time after time after time. Here is what Secretary Shultz said on diplomacy: Americans have sometimes tended to think that power and diplomacy are two distinct alternatives. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding. The truth is, power and diplomacy must always go together, or we will accomplish very little in this world. Power must always be guided by purpose. At the same time, the hard reality is that diplomacy not backed by strength will always be ineffectual at best, dangerous at worst. I wish the Secretary of State would read what one of the great diplomats and leaders of our time, Secretary George Shultz, said. Meanwhile, the slaughter goes on. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial, ``As Aleppo burns,'' be printed in the Record. There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, here we are: What Russia is sponsoring and doing in the Syrian city of Aleppo ``is barbarism,'' U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power said on Sunday. She's right: For days, Russian and Syrian planes have rained bombs--including white phosphorus, cluster munitions and ``bunker-busters'' designed to penetrate basements--on the rebel-held side of the city. Hundreds of civilians have been killed; as many as half are children. . . . Ms. Powers said that ``instead of helping get lifesaving aid to civilians, Russia and [Syria] are bombing the humanitarian convoys, hospitals and first responders who are trying desperately to keep people alive. By Monday, the administration's response seemed clear: It will hotly condemn the assault on Aleppo, but do absolutely nothing to stop it. On the contrary, Secretary of State John F. Kerry insisted he will continue to go back to the regime of Vladimir Putin with diplomatic offers, hoping it will choose to stop bombing. ``The United States makes absolutely no apology for going the extra mile to try and ease the suffering of the Syrian people,'' he grandly declared after a meeting Thursday on Syria. By ``extra mile,'' he doesn't mean actual U.S. steps to protect civilians--just more futile and debasing appeals to Moscow. We are now treated to seeing the Secretary of State of the most powerful Nation on Earth on bended knee, going to Moscow, begging his friend Lavrov to stop this slaughter. Did anybody not see the picture of the little boy covered with dirt and blood? Did no one see that? The Putin and Bashar al-Assad regimes are well aware that the only U.S. action President Obama has authorized is diplomatic, and that they are therefore under no pressure to alter their behavior. They already obtained, via Mr. Kerry, U.S. agreement to the principle that the Assad regime should remain in power while the United States and Russia join in fighting those rebels deemed to be terrorists. Remember, the President of the United States said: It's not a matter of whether Bashar al-Assad will leave but a matter of when. If it succeeds, Damascus will have essentially won the civil war and will have no real need for the negotiations Mr. Kerry says the cease-fire should lead to. If the offensive stalls, Mr. Putin can send Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov back to renew the deal with Mr. Kerry. Either way, Russia wins. The losers are the civilians trapped in eastern Aleppo-- 250,000 to 275,000 human beings--who are cut off from supplies of food and medicine being bombed mercilessly. They are being offered the same choice the regime has successfully imposed on other towns across the country: Surrender or starve. Those who try to approach the evacuation corridors Russia says have been established are shot at. They are, indeed, victims of barbarism, but the rhetoric of U.S. diplomats and continued petitioning to Mr. Putin will not help them much. I don't claim to be an academician, but I am a student of history. There was a guy named Calgacus, who, talking to his people who were fighting against the Romans, once described the Roman conquest of Carthage--where not one stone was left on top of the other, the ground was salted, and the Carthaginians were slaughtered. He described it: They made a desert, and they called it peace. We are seeing a repetition of history. My friends, Mr. Assad, Mr. Putin, the Iranians, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah are making a desert, and they will call it peace. This is one of the most shameful chapters in American history. I ask my friend and colleague, how many hospitals, markets, schools, and playgrounds do Russian and Syrian regime aircraft have to bomb before we realize that Putin and Assad are not interested in stopping the violence? They are interested in victory; they are not interested in stopping the violence. How many aid warehouses and U.N. humanitarian convoys do they have to destroy before we realize Putin and Assad are not interested in delivering aid to those in need? Four hundred thousand Syrian civilians have been murdered. Six million are refugees. When will the President of the United States do what is necessary to stop this slaughter before they make it a desert?

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask my colleague, when former Secretary of State Clinton said ``no ground troops in Iraq or Syria,'' do you think that means the 4,500 that are there now have to be withdrawn? Does she really believe that you can destroy ISIS with air power alone, which was basically what she said last night?

Mr. McCAIN. My colleague mentioned this meeting that we had with Maliki about maintaining a residual force. I would also like to point out to my colleague that the reason given by Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton was that we couldn't get a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government, which then would not make it tenable for our troops to remain. We now have 4,000 or 5,000--whatever it is--there. Where is the status of forces agreement that was so necessary then? It is not there because they wanted out. By the way, I believe it was the President of the United States who said we are leaving behind the most peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Iraq in its history. Last night, Mr. Trump was right when he said that Al Qaeda went to Syria and became ISIS. We had Al Qaeda defeated. It was over. I would also remind my colleague that one of the most consequential hearings in the history of the Armed Services Committee was when we were about to have a resolution through the Congress calling for the withdrawal of all troops because our strategy had failed. There was no strategy. The Senator from South Carolina and I called for the resignation and the firing of the then-Secretary of Defense of our own President, George W. Bush, because we were failing. Then along came the surge and David Petraeus. It was then-Senator Clinton at that hearing who said--and whoever wrote it for her, in clever style: I would have to have a willing suspension of disbelief in order to think that the surge will work. She was wrong then, and she is wrong now because the surge did work-- thanks to the sacrifice of so much precious American blood at places like Fallujah. Then, we had it won. Then, the worst lie that I have seen in my time in the Senate was this: Well, we couldn't have stayed because we had to withdraw. That is a lie. We could have stayed. The Senator from South Carolina just described the meeting we had with Maliki. The fact is clear. Al Qaeda then moved to Syria. It became ISIS. Now we have seen the consequences of the abject failure of that administration, that President, and that Secretary of State. You cannot deny the facts. I would say to my friend from South Carolina that this didn't have to happen. But what is happening now, as a consequence of that failure--as much as we want to revisit history--is that we could stop it now. We could stop it now. We could declare a no-fly zone. We could have a 100,000-person force--90 percent of them from Sunni Arab countries--and go into Raqqa and take them. We could tell Bashar Assad that he has to stop the slaughter. The barrel bombs have to stop, or we will take their planes out of the air. You know what would happen? The next time one of them was shot down after dropping bombs and these terrible weapons on innocent civilians, it would stop.

Mr. McCAIN. I will leave my colleagues again with the words of former Secretary of State George Shultz: The truth is, power and diplomacy must always go together, or we will accomplish very little in this world. Power must always be guided by purpose. At the same time, the hard reality is that diplomacy not backed by strength will always be ineffectual at best, dangerous at worst. That is the situation we are in today. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 .