John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it true that in all conflicts--one of the great tragedies of conflicts is that innocent civilians are slaughtered?

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask again the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee: Suppose that, unimpeded, the Houthis, the clients of the Iranians, had taken over the country of Yemen. What would that do? Would that, indeed, pose a threat to the Straits of Hormuz, where they are already harassing American naval vessels?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, let's be clear about what the arms sale is all about. It is about giving a nation that is under attack by an Iranian-sponsored militia the arms that it needs to defend its people and its territory. The Houthi militia, which is Iran's proxy in Yemen, is attacking Saudi Arabia's southern border. It has carried out hundreds of cross- border raids into Saudi Arabia and has fired numerous missiles deep into Saudi territory. Make no mistake, this aggression is fueled by the Iranians. Earlier this year, the United States seized a shipment of arms bound for the Houthi militia. Have no doubt that the Houthi militia are the clients and the stooges and the agents of Iran, which is attempting to take over control of Yemen, which is an important nation, particularly because of its geographic location on the Straits of Hormuz. Have no doubt about what the situation would be strategically if the Iranian-sponsored Houthis controlled Yemen. Have no doubt about the threat that it is to the United States of America and to freedom of navigation. Houthi aggression against Saudi Arabia has displaced over 75,000 Saudis and killed hundreds of civilians. If militias were attacking our borders and launching missiles into our territory and our friends refused to help us defend ourselves, we would certainly question the value of that friendship. This is why this sale is more important than just a sale. It is a message. The sale will give Saudi Arabia tanks it has used to defend its own country from Houthi attacks. The United States has no evidence that Saudi Arabia has used the tanks outside of Saudi territory. In fact, 20 of the tanks in the case would be intended to replace those damaged by Houthi artillery while the tanks were on Saudi territory, deployed in defensive positions to counter offensive Houthi cross-border raids. These tanks will be reviewed and monitored like all U.S.-origin defense articles to ensure they are used in the manner intended or consistent with legal obligations and foreign policy goals and values. I say to my colleagues that blocking this sale of tanks will be interpreted by our gulf partners--not just Saudi Arabia--as another sign that the United States of America is abandoning our commitment to the region and is an unreliable security partner. That is what this vote is all about. The nations in the region already have that impression because President Obama has reneged on his promise made at the U.S.-Gulf Cooperation Council meeting at Camp David in May of 2015 to fast-track arms transfers. As we support the Saudis in the defense of their territorial integrity, we do not refrain from expressing our concern about the war in Yemen and how it is being conducted. We remain concerned by the high number of casualties resulting from the fighting. We have repeatedly expressed our deepest concern about the ongoing strikes that have killed and injured civilians, the heavy toll paid by the Yemeni people, and the urgent and compelling need for humanitarian assistance. There has been some progress, including the establishment of the Joint Incident Assessment Team, a commission to investigate civilian casualties. But we cannot forget that an Iranian-backed, Houthi-controlled Yemen will be a chaotic, unstable place ripe for exploitation not only by Iran but also by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIL. That is why it must be our goal and the goal of the international community to arrive at a political solution to bring stability and security back to Yemen. Saudi Arabia has been seeking such a solution. The Saudis were cooperative and participated in good faith in the peace negotiations in Kuwait before those talks, unfortunately, broke down over Houthi intransigence. They have shown considerable restraint in not responding with airstrikes to Houthi cross-border attacks, which continue. In the meantime, we must continue to support an important regional partner against Iran's destabilizing behavior in Yemen and beyond. I say to my colleagues, this vote is more important than the sale of tanks. This vote is a message to our friends and our enemies alike. This message is that we will continue the commitment President Obama made at a meeting in 2015 with the nations in the region that we would expedite arms sales to them, not prohibit them. This is a message that one of the strongest forces against Al Qaeda in the region and other terrorist organizations is going to be allowed to acquire weapons with which to defend their sovereign nation. This vote will resonate throughout the entire Middle East. That is why I hope my colleagues will understand that the importance of this vote transcends anything to do with military equipment. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to vote overwhelmingly. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Is it correct that in Yemen, the Houthis are a proxy for Iran?

Mr. McCAIN. It is true that weapons supplies from Iran have been intercepted?

Mr. McCAIN. Is it true--would you estimate, given your knowledge of the issue, that if Saudi Arabia had not intervened in Yemen, it would now have become a client state and would have been taken over basically by the Iranians?

Mr. McCAIN. So you agree----

Mr. McCAIN. Not only to Saudi Arabia----

Mr. McCAIN. Would it be accurate to state that your committee has held hearings on human rights, your committee has advocated improvements of human rights in Saudi Arabia, and it is the thinking of almost all of us that we want to see more progress in that direction? But at the same time, isn't it true that when we look at what Bashar al-Assad is doing, when we look at the slaughter of 400,000 people in Syria, 6 million refugees, would one assume that maybe this priority of the sponsors of this amendment might be a little bit misplaced?

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask one more question concerning the so-called 28 pages that recently have been declassified? Isn't it true that information implicates individual Saudis as having been responsible for 9/11? Isn't it true that no one disagrees with that?

Mr. McCAIN. But isn't it also true that the Government of Saudi Arabia has not been implicated by these so-called 28 pages that were going to reveal the vast conspiracy that the Government of Saudi Arabia allegedly for years had--the adversaries, shall I say, had alleged that somehow the Saudi Government was involved in? Isn't it true that the 28 pages show they were not?

Mr. McCAIN. So, if this proposal or this piece of legislation were passed, I would ask my friend: What message is sent? What message would be sent, supposing that we voted in favor of this misguided resolution that we are now debating?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, for his stewardship of the Foreign Relations Committee, for his indepth knowledge and advocacy for a strong America and strong alliances. I think the voice you have added to this debate should have an effect, I hope, on both sides of the aisle. I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of debate only until 2:25 p.m.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, events that are taking place in Syria and in the Middle East in general but in Syria and around the world show an incredibly dangerous deterioration of American national security, of our standing in the world, and can have consequences that are far- reaching and very damaging to the United States of America. Yesterday the Washington Post--not known as a rightwing conservative periodical--had an editorial entitled ``Whether or not the Syrian cease-fire sticks, Putin wins.'' It begins by talking about the circumstances concerning what happened with this so-called agreement, which, according to the New York Times today, has been objected to by the Secretary of Defense and other members of his own administration. The Washington Post editorial says: When Russia launched its direct military intervention in Syria a year ago, President Obama predicted its only result would be a quagmire. Instead, the agreement struck by Secretary of State John F. Kerry on Friday with his Russian counterpart offers Mr. Putin everything he sought. The Assad regime, which was tottering a year ago, will be entrenched and its opposition dealt a powerful blow. The United States will meanwhile grant Mr. Putin's long-standing demand that it join with Russia in targeting groups deemed to be terrorists. I might add that when the Russians came in, the first people they attacked were the moderate people whom we trained, armed, and equipped, slaughtering them. If serious political negotiations on Syria's future ever take place--an unlikely prospect, at least in the Obama administration's remaining months--the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian backers will hold a commanding position. In exchange for these sweeping concessions, which essentially abandon Mr. Obama's onetime goal of freeing Syria from Mr. Assad and make the United States a junior partner of Russia in the Middle East's most important ongoing conflict, Mr. Kerry promises that humanitarian lifelines will be opened into the besieged city of Aleppo and other areas subjected to surrender-or-starve tactics. The Syrian air force will supposedly be banned from dropping ``barrel bombs,'' chlorine and other munitions on many areas where rebels are based-- though there seem to be loopholes in the deal, and its text has not been made public. I might add that the text has not been made available to the Congress of the United States or the American people. It goes on to say: If that really happens, and lives are saved, that will be a positive benefit. Perhaps it's the only one available to a U.S. policy that swears off, as doomed to failure, the same limited military measures that Russia has employed with success. But Mr. Putin and Mr. Assad have agreed to multiple previous truces, in Syria and, in Mr. Putin's case, Ukraine-- and violated all of them. Their reward has been to gain territory and strengthen their strategic positions, while receiving from the United States not sanction but more concessions and proposals for new deals. If the regimes observe their promises in this case, it may be because the time to exploit this U.S. administration--which has retreated from its red lines, allowed Russia to restore itself as a Middle East power and betrayed those Syrians who hoped to rid themselves of a blood-drenched dictator--is finally running out. In other words, there may be a time when Vladimir Putin and Bashar Assad decide on an actual cease-fire, which has been violated time after time. After they have gained sufficient control, after they have driven any of the moderate forces out of the major regions of Syria-- and for all intents and purposes, thanks to Hezbollah; the Iranian Revolutionary Guard; Russia; and more Iranian involvement by people like Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard; Hezbollah from Lebanon--they will have gained enough control over Syria that they will be satisfied with what they have and then will seek a cease-fire. This is one of the most disgraceful chapters in American history. Look at the map of Syria and Iraq in the Middle East in 2009 when Barack Obama became President of the United States and look at a map today. When Barack Obama came to power in 2009, Al Qaeda was defeated. The situation was under complete control thanks to the sacrifice of an enormous amount of American blood and treasure. When my colleagues and the liberal media and others criticize what happened in Iraq and what a colossal failure it was, maybe there is an argument about going in. There can be no intellectual honesty unless you mention the fact that we had it under control. Al Qaeda was defeated. The casualties were down. All we needed to do was keep a residual force there to maintain control. Instead, the President of the United States decides to take everybody out, and the rest is history. Al Qaeda moves to Syria, Al Qaeda becomes ISIS, and the rest is history. Why is it that the liberal media and my friends on the other side of the aisle who continue to talk about how Iraq was such a disaster fail to mention that thanks to GEN David Petraeus and brave young Americans who sacrificed time after time, we had it won? And the reason given for pulling everybody out was that we couldn't get a Status of Forces Agreement ratified by the Iraqi Parliament. We now have 4,500 permanent and thousands who are rotating in and out. Where is the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi Parliament? Wasn't that the reason given by these experienced and talented members of the President's National Security Council, experts on--I believe science fiction was one of them, and others who have never heard a shot fired in anger and have no experience in the military of any kind? They are the ones who said we can't stay because we haven't got the Status Of Forces Agreement, so we pulled out, and Al Qaeda rotated to Syria and became ISIS and now we have a caliphate. We may be able to finally destroy them, although this is the classic of incrementalism--50 troops here, 20 troops there, 50 more here, a gradual escalation in targets. Still, I have been told one-third or maybe as many as half of our aircraft that went out and flew on a mission returned without having fired a weapon or having dropped a bomb, and everything is run from those experienced tacticians and leaders at the National Security Council. Here we are now, after Hezbollah, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the Russians came in, and the President declared a ``quagmire,'' we now have a ceasefire that, according to our view and others, Putin wins. By the way, there is also a New York Times story that shows there are severe divisions within the administration as to whether this was a good idea. I draw my colleague's attention to this morning's Wall Street Journal. Syria's Regime is pressing a systematic effort to alter the country's demographics and tighten Assad's grip on power, U.N. officials and opposition figures said. How do they do that? They surround an area, starve them out, and barrel bomb them. Barrel bombs are horrible weapons, my friends. They barrel bomb them and kill a whole bunch of them and then they declare a ceasefire and let them leave and take over that particular area. One of the most brutal and inhumane types of warfare is being practiced by Bashar al-Assad as we speak. There are a lot of things going on in the world, which apparently includes the dictator in the Philippines now saying he is going to buy Russian and Chinese equipment and throw Americans out of the Philippines. The Philippine leader, Duerte, is seeking arms from Russia and China, signaling a shift in its alliance with the United States. The Chinese continue their aggressive behavior in the South China Sea, and of course we are now seeing the other Middle Eastern countries deciding they have to go their own way because the United States of America cannot be relied on for assistance as the situation continues to deteriorate. I ask my colleague and friend from South Carolina for his comments about the deteriorating situation and this latest ``agreement.'' I don't know what number that agreement is, by the way, but it certainly isn't the first nor the second nor third that has been reached in the hopes that somehow--and each time greater and greater concessions are made to Bashar al-Assad and now acknowledgment of the Russians as our senior partner. I just ask my colleague: Are we supposed to enter into some kind of alliance with Vladimir Putin in this conflict in Syria? Vladimir Putin dismembered Ukraine, bombed the people we armed, trained, and equipped when they first went into Syria--I don't know how many were slaughtered--put enormous pressures on the Baltic countries, and has occupied parts of Georgia. Does anybody on Earth believe our new partners will insist that Bashar al-Assad leave Syria?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to add to my colleague's assessment when he said that 400,000 people were killed.

Mr. McCAIN. All with families--barrel bombs, poison gas. By the way, there has been a recurrence of poison gas. Six million people are now refugees and it is putting an enormous strain on Europe. We can look around the world and see where all of this weakness is reflected, whether it be in Syria or whether it be in Iran, which threatened two American surveillance planes as they flew over the Straits of Hormuz-- Philippines leaders seeking arms from the Russians and the Chinese, Chinese continued aggression in the South China Sea, and the list goes on and on. In summary, I agree with the editorial in the Washington Post yesterday: ``Whether or not the Syrian cease-fire sticks, Putin wins.'' This election is going to be a very important one. I yield the floor.

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, today I wish to join the entire State of Arizona in mourning the passage of Joe Hosteen Kellwood this week. Joe, a decorated war hero, father, and grandfather, was a loyal servant and patriot of this country. It is with great respect that I commemorate the passing of this honorable man, who volunteered his life during one of the most trying times for our Nation. Joe will be remembered as one of the legendary Navajo Code Talkers of World War II, who developed the only Allied code that the enemy was never able to decipher. Using their unique language skills, about 430 Native Americans turned the tide of battle against the Japanese, which military experts estimate shortened the war in the Pacific. Their bravery, resourcefulness, and tenacity in the line of duty remains a testament to their remarkable service. During World War II, Joe was inspired by the brave acts of servicemen during the Battle of Guadalcanal. He then enlisted in 1942, telling his sister, ``I'm going to war'' to defend his nation. Shortly thereafter, he was selected for the Navajo Talkers' School at Camp Elliot in San Diego where he studied on his own at night and arduously memorized those codes. On his transport ship to Australia, where he would join the 1st Marine Regiment, Joe conducted a Navajo ritual for safe return. Although such rituals were not allowed under military rules, he secretly used a piece of gum mixed with corn pollen he had brought from home and spat the mixture into the ocean as he prayed to the Holy People. His faith gave him the confidence he needed. Joe received numerous awards and honors including the Congressional Silver Medal, Presidential Unit Citation, Combat Action Ribbon, Naval Unit Commendation, Good Conduct, American Campaign Medal, Asiatic- Pacific Campaign Medal, and WWII Victory Medal for his heroic service. After returning to the Navajo reservation, Joe returned to his trade as carpenter and lived for over 60 years in his same Sunnyslope home with his loving wife, Andrena, where they watched his 5 sons, 15 grandchildren, and 20 great-grandchildren grow. He served as an inspiration for his fellow Navajo as a speaker at numerous events and sang the ``Marine Corps Hymn'' in his native language. Joe was a proud member of Veterans of Foreign Wars post 9400 and American Legion post 75 for many years. We owe a debt of gratitude to the sacrifices of selfless patriots like Joe whose remarkable courage and patriotism will be long remembered by his country.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, over the last few weeks, my home State of Arizona has been thrust into the national spotlight. I wish I could say it is because of the success of our sports teams or the strength of our universities. Instead, it is because Arizona has become ground zero for the collapse of ObamaCare, leaving most of our citizens with limited choices and higher costs when it comes to the President's signature health care law, which is a law that I fought against for weeks on end and which the then-majority on the other side of the aisle, with 60 votes and without a single Republican vote and without a single Republican amendment, passed into law. In 2009 the President said: ``[I]f you've got health insurance, you like your doctor, you like your plan--you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.'' Let me repeat the words of the President of the United States after, on a strict party-line basis, he passed ObamaCare: ``[I]f you've got health insurance, you like your doctor, you like your plan--you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.'' That is a quote from the President of the United States when ObamaCare was passed. He also said that if you like your health insurance policy, you can keep your policy, period, in his own inimitable style. Ever since the passage of ObamaCare, Americans have been hit by broken promise after broken promise and met with higher costs, fewer choices, and poor quality of care. Let me read just a few of the most recent headlines addressing the collapse of ObamaCare in Arizona. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that relevant articles be printed in today's Record.