Floor Statements

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.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss an amendment that I filed to the pending legislation. It is an amendment to modify the Jones Act. The Jones Act is an archaic 1920s-era law that hinders free trade, stifles the economy, and hurts consumers, largely for the benefit of labor unions.

Specifically, this amendment would effectively repeal a law that prevents U.S. shippers from purchasing or otherwise supportively procuring the services of vessels that are built outside the United States for use in American waters. From time to time here in Congress, we find that legislation still remains on the books many decades after it has served its original stated purpose. If ever we had one, I think one of the best examples of this is a law called the Jones Act.

As many of you know, the Jones Act is simply a continuation of laws passed through U.S. history addressing cabotage--or port-to-port coastal shipping. Those laws have been used to protect U.S. domestic shipping dating back to the very first session of Congress.

The Jones Act may have had some rationale back in the 1920s when it was enacted, but today it serves only to raise shipping costs, making U.S. farmers and businesses less competitive in the global marketplace and increasing costs for American consumers.

According to the 2002 U.S. International Trade Commission economic study--by the way, the U.S. International Trade Commission is not a group of special interests, they are an international trade commission which is appointed to study issues affecting international trade, obviously, as the name implies.

Their study reached the conclusion that repealing the Jones Act would lower shipping costs by about 22 percent. The Commission also found that repealing the Jones Act would have an annual positive welfare effect of $656 million on the U.S. economy.

Since these decade-old studies are the most recent statistics available, imagine the impact the Jones Act repeal would have today-- far more than a $656 million annual positive impact--likely closer to $1 billion, stimulating our economy in the midst of an anemic recovery.

The requirement that U.S. shippers must purchase vessels in the United States comes at a tremendous cost that is passed on to U.S. consumers. For example, just recently the U.S. container line Matson placed a $418 million order for two 3,600 20-foot equivalent unit container ships in a U.S. shipyard. The high price of $209 million per vessel reflects that the ships will be carrying goods within the United States and therefore governed by the protectionist Jones Act.

The fact is that Matson's order at $209 million per ship is more than five times more expensive than if those same ships were procured outside of the United States. Ships of that size built outside the United States would cost closer to $40 million each. For comparison, even Maersk Line's far larger ships cost millions less at an average of $185 million each.

The U.S. Maritime Administration, MARAD, has found that the cost to operate U.S. flag vessels at $22,000 per day is about 2.7 times higher than foreign flag vessels--just $6,000 a day.

There is no doubt that these inflated costs are eventually passed on to shipping customers. In the energy sector, for example, the price for moving crude oil from the gulf coast to the Northeastern United States on Jones Act tankers is $5 to $6 more per barrel, while moving it to eastern Canada on foreign flag tankers is about $2.

That can mean an additional $1 million per tanker in shipping costs for oil producers.

This increased cost is why, according to the Congressional Research Service, more than twice as much gulf coast crude oil was shipped by water to Canada as shipped to Northeastern U.S. refineries last year-- all in an effort to avoid paying Jones Act shipping rates.

The implications of this fact touches just about every American who buys gasoline. It is American consumers who pay exorbitantly higher prices because of a law that protects the shipbuilding industry and domestically manufactured ships that transport crude and other refined products.

But it is not only the energy sector that deals with the distorted effects of the Jones Act. Cattlemen in Hawaii who want to bring their cattle to the U.S. mainland market, for example, have actually resorted to flying the cattle on 747 jumbo jets to work around the restrictions of the Jones Act. Their only alternative is to ship the cattle to Canada because all livestock carriers in the world are foreign owned.

I am deeply concerned about the impact of any barrier to free trade. I believe the U.S. trade barriers invite other countries to put up or retain their own barriers and that at the end of the day the U.S. consumer and the economy at large pays the price.

Throughout my career I have always been a strong supporter of free trade. Opening markets to the free flow of goods and services benefits America and benefits our trading partners. Trade liberalization creates jobs, expands economic growth, and provides consumers with access to lower cost goods and services.

Yet as clear as the benefits of free trade are, actually taking action to remove trade barriers and open markets can be almost impossible in Congress. Special interests that have long and richly benefited from protectionism flex their muscles and issue doomsday warnings about the consequences of moving forward on free trade. Judging from the hysterical reaction by some of the special interests to my simple filing of this amendment, the debate over the Jones Act will be no different.

The domestic shipbuilding requirement of the Jones Act is outdated and should be abolished.

U.S. consumers are free to buy a foreign-built car. U.S. trucking companies are free to buy a foreign-built truck. U.S. railroads are free to buy a foreign-built locomotive. U.S. airlines are free to buy a foreign-built airplane.

Why can't U.S. maritime special interests more affordably ship foreign goods on foreign-made vessels? Why do U.S. consumers, particularly those in

Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico, need to pay for ships that are five times more expensive?

If there was a law that long ago outlived its usefulness--if it ever had any--it is the Jones Act. On the Jones Act, it is time to change course today.

I have a letter from the American Farm Bureau Federation which states:

Farm Bureau believes that there should be no restrictions

as to the quantities or vessels on which a commodity is

shipped between U.S. ports. Repealing The Jones Act would

allow more competition for the movement of goods between U.S.

ports, thus driving down transportation costs.

Continuing to read from the letter ``TO ALL MEMBERS OF SENATE'' from the Farm Bureau:

Repeal of The Jones Act accomplishes the same purpose: a

reduction in energy costs, increased competition to lower

costs of U.S. goods and more opportunities to transport

agricultural commodities at competitive prices.

Due to this importance, Farm Bureau policy, developed by

our grassroots members consisting of working farmers and

ranchers, explicitly supports the repeal of The Jones Act.

Farm Bureau urges you to vote in support of Sen. McCain's

amendment repealing sections of the Merchant Marine Act of

1920.

Then there is an article: ``McCain under fire.''

A growing number of politicians are taking aim at a

prominent US Senator's crusade against the Jones Act . . . .

Oh my God. I am deeply concerned. All the special interests on this issue are weighing in. By the way, one of them would have effects on the U.S. shipbuilding and repair base. We all know the U.S. shipbuilding industry, because of the Jones Act, is moribund. In fact, I have an article from the Daily Signal which says: ``Shipbuilding industry stuck on ground.''

U.S. shipbuilding exports are tiny compared to exports of

semis and trailers. Shipbuilding is subject to the

protectionist Jones Act which hinders competition, while the

semi industry is not.

According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,

``The coastwise laws [like the Jones Act] are highly

protectionist `provisions that are intended to create a

`coastwise monopoly' in order to protect and develop the

American merchant marine, shipbuilding, etc.''

But protecting U.S. industries from competition may

actually have the opposite effect. Consider U.S. production

of vessels designed to transport goods via water compared to

U.S. production of semi-trailer trucks and trailers designed

to transport goods via land. In 2013, U.S. manufacturers

exported $4.1 billion in semi-trailer trucks and trailers,

but they exported just $0.1 billion in commercial ships.

Americans in most states would benefit from the freedom to

ship goods on the best-built, most affordable vessels,

wherever they are made. The Alaska governor is actually

required to ``use best efforts and all appropriate means to

persuade the United States Congress to repeal those

provisions of the Jones Act formally codified at 46 U.S.C.

861, et seq.''

The Jones Act drives up the price of gas, hinders U.S.

infrastructure improvements, inflicts high costs on people in

Hawaii and Puerto Rico, and makes it difficult to transship

goods between U.S. ports.

The facts are clear. What we have is an old-time 1920s law that may have been, I emphasize the word ``may,'' have had some utility in the past.

I am aware that all of the special interests have been mobilized and how this can be damaging, frankly, to certain special interests. It would not be damaging to the average citizen who would pay less for the goods that are transported much more cheaply as a result of the Jones Act repeal.

I say to those critics of this amendment, as has been my habit over the years, I will not quit on this issue. There will be other opportunities to put the Senate and Congress on record.

Sooner or later the Farm Bureau will be heard. Sooner or later the people of Hawaii and Puerto Rico who are paying exorbitant prices that they shouldn't have to pay will be heard. Sooner or later this protectionist--an anachronism--ancient protectionist act will be repealed and average American consumers will benefit from it and unfortunately the special interests will not.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the January 20, 2015, Farm Bureau letter, the Heritage Foundation piece called the Daily Signal, entitled ``Senator McCain's Jones Act Amendment: Good for America,'' and another article: ``If You Like Higher Prices, Enriched Cronies, And Weak National Security, Then You'll Love The Jones Act.'' It is one of my favorite pieces.

I thank the Senator from Alaska.

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

Madam President, I rise to discuss my opposition to the pending vote concerning Mr. Anthony ``Tony'' Blinken, who is not only unqualified, but, in fact, in my view, one of the worst selections of a very bad lot that this President has chosen.

I hope that many of my colleagues will understand that I do not come to the floor to oppose a nomination of the President of the United States often because I believe that elections have consequences. In this case, this individual has actually been dangerous to America and to the young men and women who are fighting and serving our country.

Mr. Blinken has been a foreign policy adviser to Vice President Biden since his days in the Senate, but as Robert Gates has noted, Mr. Biden has been ``wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.''

At the Special Operations Fund Annual Meeting on May 6, 2013, Mr. Blinken discussed a number of the administration's achievements, including, one, ending the war in Iraq responsibly; two, setting a clear strategy and date for the withdrawal from Afghanistan; three, decimating Al Qaeda's senior leadership; and four, repairing our alliances and restoring America's standing in the world.

That is as Orwellian as any statement I have ever heard. Each and every issue--the conditions are a far cry from the so-called achievements that Mr. Blinken describes.

In his capacity as an assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser, Mr. Blinken has been a functionary and an agent of a U.S. foreign policy that has made the world much less safe today.

Let's review some major elements of that policy, and in particular, Mr. Blinken's role in conceptualizing and furthering it.

U.S. foreign policy is in a shambles. It is, at best, astrategic, and at worst, antistrategic. It lacks any concept of how to obtain our foreign policy goals. This has led to countless foreign policy failures, including the continued slaughter of the Syrian people by President Bashar al-Assad; the Russian reset that culminated with President Putin's invasion of Ukraine; the betrayal of our key allies, especially in Central Europe, not to mention Israel; failing to achieve a status-of-forces agreement that would help to maintain Iraqi security and stability; following similarly unwise strategies in Afghanistan--we will see the same movie in Afghanistan that we saw in Iraq if we

have a date-driven withdrawal rather than a status-driven, conditions- driven situation; and our feckless position in negotiations with Iran on nuclear weapons that has failed to produce any progress towards an agreement.

I could go into many other failures, such as the vaunted Geneva Convention of 40 nations that was supposed to arrange for the transition of power from Bashar al-Assad and the object failure of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, and what will either be an imminent failure of an Iranian nuclear weapons agreement or an agreement that will be disastrous in the long run.

There are two common sayings by the administration officials, not me, that have defined the President's approach to foreign policy: ``Leading from behind,'' and ``Don't do stupid [stuff].'' These approaches have resulted in a failed foreign policy that has made America and Americans less safe.

Even President Obama's most strident supporters have begun to question the President's foreign policy decisions.

In an article entitled ``Damage to Obama's Foreign Policy Has Been Largely Self-Inflicted,'' the Washington Post's David Ignatius, a key supporter of the administration's foreign policy goals, wrote, ``At key turning points--in Egypt and Libya during the Arab Spring, in Syria, in Ukraine, and, yes, in Benghazi--the administration was driven by messaging priorities rather than sound, interests-based policy.''

What has Mr. Blinken had to say about all of these issues, my friends? I will give you a few examples.

On Iraq, at the Center for American Progress, on March 16, 2012--I am not making this up--Mr. Blinken said:

What's beyond debate is that Iraq today is less violent,

more democratic and more prosperous--and the United States

more deeply engaged there--than at any time in recent

history.

Less violent, more democratic, and more prosperous.

At a White House briefing on March 16, 2012, Mr. Blinken said:

President Obama and Vice President Biden came to office

with this commitment: To end the Iraq war responsibly.

Both parts of that sentence are critical.

End the war.

Responsibly.

Under the leadership of President Obama and Vice President

Biden, who the President asked to oversee our Iraq policy--

and who has made 8 trips to Iraq since being elected--we have

followed that path to the letter.

He went on to say:

At every significant step along the way, many predicted

that the violence would return and Iraq would slide backward

toward sectarian war.

Get this. He said:

Those predictions proved wrong.

He went on to say:

Over the past three years, violence has declined and

remains at historic lows--even after we completed the

drawdown of U.S. forces late last year.

Remember, he said this in 2012.

Weekly security incidents fell from an average of 1,600 in

2007-2008 to fewer than 100 today.

He went on to say:

And in December, after more than eight wrenching years,

President Obama kept his promise to end the war--responsibly.

And, while Iran and Iraq will inevitably be more

intertwined than we, and many of its neighbors, would like,

one thing we learned, over more than eight years in Iraq is

that the vast majority of its leaders, including the Prime

Minister--

Who at that time was Prime Minister Maliki--

--are first and foremost Iraqi nationalists and resistant to

outside influence from anywhere--starting with Iran.

Everybody knows that the Iranians are probably the most influential nation in Iraq, certainly under Maliki.

On foreign policy, December 27, 2013, he said:

If we still had troops in Iraq today, the numbers would

have been very small. They would not have been engaged in

combat. That would not have been their mission, so the idea

that they could or would have done something about the

violence that is going on now in Iraq seems, to me, detached

from the reality of what the mission would have been had they

stayed in any small number.

Now you don't have to take my word for it. Take the word of Secretary Gates, Secretary Panetta, Ambassador Crocker, and any knowledgeable person about Iraq, and I will insert their quotes for the record, including Ambassador Crocker, who said: ``Of course we could have left a residual force behind.'' Both Panetta and Gates said the same thing.

At no time was there a public statement by the President of the United States or Mr. Blinken that they wanted to very seriously. In fact, they trumpeted the fact that the last American troop at that time--now we have many troops back--left Iraq and bragged about what a great day it was.

On Fox News with Chris Wallace, September 28, 2014:

Wallace:

Finally, President Obama spoke to the U.N. this week, but I

wanted to ask you about his speech to the U.N., saying--

general assembly last year, in which he said we are ending a

decade of war. How could the President have been so wrong?

Blinken:

The president was exactly right. What we're doing is

totally different than the last decade. We're not sending

hundreds of thousands of American troops back to Iraq or

Afghanistan or anywhere else. We're not going to be spending

trillions of American dollars.

Wallace:

Mr. Blinken . . . he said all our troops left Iraq. In

fact, he has just sent at least 1,600 troops back into Iraq.

He said we've dismantled the core of al Qaeda. [And yet,] the

Khorasan group which you struck in the first day is an

offshoot of the core of al Qaeda, and, in fact, follows the

direct orders of the leader of al Qaeda, Ayman al Zawahiri.

Blinken:

Chris, they fled. Because we were so successful and

effective in Afghanistan and Pakistan, they fled, because we

decimated the core of Al Qaeda. They removed themselves. They

went to Syria.

At the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on October 30, 2014:

The White House ``sought to leave a limited residual

force'' in Iraq, but the Iraqi Government simply refused to

agree to legal protections for such troops, said then-Deputy

National Security Adviser Tony Blinken, who argued the final

decision to withdraw all U.S. troops ``was not the result of

a failure to negotiate.''

``It's something we worked very hard,'' he said. ``But . .

. after a 10-year `occupation,' the Iraqi body politic did

not want us to stay in Iraq. That's what happened'' . . . We

were focused and acting on ISIL and the threat that it posed

more than 1 year before the fall of Mosul, but the problem

began to outrun the solution fueled by the conflict in Syria,

Iraqi reluctance, and renewed sectarianism in Iraq in advance

of elections with politicians on all sides playing to their

bases.

Statements such as these are so divorced from reality, one can only draw one of two conclusions: either that Mr. Blinken is abysmally ignorant or he is simply not telling the truth for whatever motive there is.

By the way, here is what Ryan Crocker said on Iraq:

As a former ambassador to Iraq from 2007 to 2009, do you

think it was a mistake not to push hard for the Status of

Forces agreement with Iraq before the U.S. pullout?

I would remind my colleagues, Ryan Crocker--probably the most respected member of our diplomatic corps alive today--said:

I do. We could have gotten that agreement if we had been a

little more persistent, flexible, and creative. But what

really cost us was the political withdrawal. We cut off high-

level political engagement with Iraq when we withdrew our

troops. There were no senior visits, very few phone calls.

Secretary of State John Kerry made one visit prior to this

current crisis, mainly to lecture the Iraqis on how bad they

were being for facilitating Iranian weapon shipments to

Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. And we left them to their

own devices, knowing that left to their own devices, it would

not work out well.

So we have Mr. Blinken's comments, and juxtapose them with those of Ambassador Crocker.

Here is what Leon Panetta, Democrat, Secretary of Defense said:

It was clear to me--and many others--that withdrawing all

our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely

holding Iraq together.

That is from Secretary Leon Panetta's book.

Then he went on to say:

My fear, as I voiced to the President and others, was that

if the country split apart or slid back into the violence

that we'd seen in the years immediately following the U.S.

invasion, it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot

attacks against the U.S. Iraq's stability was not only in

Iraq's interest but also in ours. I privately and publicly

advocated for a residual force that could provide training

and security for Iraq's military.

Then he went on to say, talking about the Pentagon:

Those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid

itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than

lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and

interests.

That is a statement by Leon Panetta.

I will move on to Afghanistan.

Mr. Blinken said:

We have been very clear. We have been consistent. The war

will be concluded by the end of 2014. We have a timetable,

and that timetable will not change.

This is why I am so worried about him being in the position he is in, because if they stick to that timetable, I am telling my colleagues that we will see the replay of Iraq all over again. We must leave a stabilizing force behind of a few thousand troops or we will see again what we saw in Iraq.

So let's move on to Syria.

In an MSNBC interview in 2014, responding to a question about President Obama's comment in August 2014 calling it ``a fantasy'' to say that arming the Syrian rebels 3 years ago would have helped the situation, Blinken:

Fantasy was the notion that had we started to work with

these guys--

Talking about the Free Syrian Army--

six months earlier, that that somehow would have turned the

tide.

Blinken:

Candy, you know, Assad has been a magnet for the very

extremism we're now fighting against. And it is inconceivable

to think of Syria being stable with Assad as its leader. He

has forfeited his legitimacy. ISIL right now is the wolf at

the door. But the answer to both Assad and ISIL actually is

the moderate opposition. They need to be built up, so that

they can be a counterweight to Assad. In the near term, they

need to be built up so they can work on the ground to help

deal with ISIL.

Candy Crowley:

So ISIS is the wolf at the door now, but Assad, as far as

the U.S. is concerned, is the next wolf at the door?

Mr. Blinken:

We have been very clear that there needs to be a transition

in Syria, that as long as Assad is there, it's very hard to

see Syria being stable, and he will continue to be a magnet

for the extremists we are fighting.

Crowley:

But a transition is not the same as, we will actively help

you bring this guy down.

Blinken:

The best way to deal with Assad is to transition him out so

that the moderate opposition can fill the vacuum. That's what

we have been working on. The more you build them up, the more

you make them a counterweight, the more possible that

becomes.

Let me just remind my colleagues of what has happened. There is a guy named Caesar who about a year and a half ago smuggled out thousands of pictures. These pictures are the most gripping and horrifying I have ever seen. They were actual pictures which have been authenticated of the atrocities committed by Bashar Assad. They are wrenching, they are heartbreaking, and they are terrible.

Now, 200,000 people have been butchered in Syria, and 3.5 million are refugees; 150,000 are still in Bashar Assad's prison experiencing atrocities such as this. These are little children here. These are little children. They have been massacred by Bashar Assad.

What have we done? What have we done in response to this? First of all, amazingly, these photographs have been authenticated by this guy Caesar. He did testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It didn't seem to rise to the interest of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee or the American people or this administration.

I was at a refugee camp in Jordan where at that time there were, I think, 75,000 refugees. I was being taken around by a young woman who was a schoolteacher, and she said:

Senator McCain, do you see all of these children?

I said: Yes.

She said: Those children believe that you have abandoned them, Senator McCain, that you Americans have abandoned them, and when they grow up, they are going to take revenge on you.

So here we are, this incredible slaughter, massacre, torture taking place, and what is this administration doing? It is trying to make a deal with the Iranians and leaving Bashar Assad to wreak havoc on the Syrian people who are still able to fight, butchering them with barrel bombs. Most of my colleagues know what a barrel bomb is. It is a huge cylinder, and it is packed with explosives and nuts and bolts and pieces of shrapnell. Bashar Assad, unimpeded, flies his helicopters and they drop these barrel bombs. Then, when they capture these people, this is what is done to them.

Today it is clear that what is happening is that we are attacking ISIS in Syria. We are not attacking Bashar Assad, this butcher. In fact, Bashar Assad has intensified his attacks on the Free Syrian Army--intensified them. Not surprisingly, the morale of the Free Syrian Army is very low.

So General Allen and others have recently proposed a no-fly zone or an aircraft exclusion zone, an idea we have been arguing for, for about 3 years. This President still refuses to do it. It is heartbreaking. It is heartbreaking and it is tragic and it will go down in American history as one of the most shameful chapters because of our failure and the President's personal decision not to arm the Free Syrian Army when all of his key national security advisers--his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton; the head of the CIA, General Petraeus; and Secretary of Defense, Secretary Panetta all strongly recommended providing arms to the Free Syrian Army.

I will move on to Ukraine. Mr. Blinken:

What Putin has seen is the President mobilizing the

international community both in support of Ukraine and to

isolate Russia for its actions in Ukraine, and Russia is

paying a clear cost for that.

The notion that this is somehow the result of Syria makes

very little sense to me. . . . That's because this is not

about what we do or say in the first instance, it's about

Russia and its perceived interests.

What Mr. Blinken doesn't understand is that weakness in one place translates throughout the world.

When I tell my colleagues, when I tell my fellow citizens that we will not supply the Ukraine people with defensive weapons, they don't believe me. They have watched the country dismembered. They have watched Crimea go. They have watched the shoot-down on an airliner that nobody talks about anymore, and they continue to create unrest and killing in eastern Ukraine, and we will not even supply the Ukrainians with weapons with which to defend themselves.

I see that I am nearly out of time. I would like to say I wish Mr. Blinken's words were matched by his deeds.

At the Holocaust Museum, October 6, 2014, he said:

A new notion is gaining currency: the ``Responsibility to

Protect.'' It holds that states have responsibilities as well

as interests--especially the responsibility to shield their

own populations from the depraved and murderous. This

approach is bold. It is important. And the United States

welcomes it and has included it as a core element of our

National Security Strategy, along with our commitment to

prevent genocide and hold those who organize atrocities

accountable.

No one can look at those pictures, the thousands, and believe that we have held Bashar Assad responsible.

He ended up by saying:

Endorsing the responsibility to protect is one thing;

acting on it is another. All of us in the international

community will have to muster the political will to act--

diplomatically, economically, or, in extreme cases,

militarily--when governments prove unable or unwilling to

prevent the slaughter of their citizens.

That is a remarkable statement from an individual whose actions have clearly contradicted that at every turn in literally every corner of the Earth.

I know we will probably lose the vote, but I believe history will hold this administration accountable. History will hold those individuals who are part of this administration, who allowed these slaughters to go on--a dismemberment of a country called Ukraine, the first time a European country has been departitioned since World War II; the needless slaughter of thousands and thousands of Ukrainian men, women, and children, and the thousands and thousands of Syrian children. The list goes on and on.

Now we are going to promote this individual to replace probably the finest diplomat I have known, Secretary Burns. Not only is Mr. Blinken unqualified, but he is, I believe, a threat to the traditional interests and values that embody the United States of America.

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

Madam President, today I honor Voice of America's Ukrainian Service as it celebrates its 65th anniversary this week. VOA has distinguished itself among the very best news organizations in the world. For over 65 years, from the dark days of Stalin's rule to the regime of Vladimir Putin, VOA has served as a beacon of truth for Ukrainian citizens. Throughout the Cold War, VOA supported the struggle for freedom and gave hope to citizens living under repressive rule in Soviet Ukraine. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, VOA was the first to pick up the call of independence and take advantage of new opportunities to speak freely to the Ukrainian people.

The organization's long history of comprehensive reporting and objective, reliable coverage proved ever more important in November 2013 when demonstrations broke out against then-President Yanukovych's decision not to sign an association agreement with Europe. Through all of this, VOA provided live video streaming and multimedia reporting from the center of the EuroMaidan demonstrations and was one of the few news outlets fully covering Russia's annexation of Crimea. In its coverage, the world saw the spirit of the Ukrainian people and stood with them in their struggle for democracy, human rights, and the values of the transatlantic community. Through its continued coverage today, the world is now witness to Russia's aggression and invasion.

More recently, VOA has been a critical source of information for the Ukrainian people as Russia continues to advance its propaganda campaign across the region, spreading disinformation and undermining the efforts of Ukraine's EuroMaidan reformers. Putin's control of information is a key part of his strategy to rebuild post-Soviet Russia through aggression, and he uses disinformation as a tool to complement his transnational military campaigns and subvert democratic growth and development in Ukraine and across Eastern Europe. At a time when Putin's propaganda machine is working to deny reality and distort perceptions, Ukrainians rely heavily on VOA's credibility and accuracy, and its message of freedom, hope and human dignity.

VOA's reporters have worked under difficult and at times dangerous conditions. Previous governments have attempted to manipulate the media through repression and intimidation, and journalists were often arrested or detained. Today, journalists attempting to report on the conflict in eastern Ukraine are being harassed, intimidated, and physically attacked, constantly under threat of Russian thuggery. But this has not stopped the brave men and women working for VOA Ukrainian Service. They have worked through trying times, but have always maintained the integrity and professionalism to which all journalists can aspire.

Over the last 65 years, VOA has delivered thoughtful, comprehensive, and honest reporting when the Ukrainian people needed it most. I thank all members of VOA Ukrainian Service, past and present, for their tireless efforts and congratulate the organization on its 65th anniversary. Thank you for the work you do in service to the people of Ukraine and the shared values we hold dear. Together, and with the information you provide, we can achieve the democratic aspirations of our people and make the world a better, safer place for all citizens.

Today, I would like to offer words of tribute to my departing colleague, Senator Tom Coburn, whose service exemplifies standards of purposefulness, integrity, and decency, to which we should all aspire and whose example ought to inspire the service of new and returning Senators alike.

I am going to miss an awful lot our colleague from Oklahoma. I have always admired Tom for the strength of his convictions and the courage and candor with which he expresses them day after day. ``The No. 1 thing people should do in Congress,'' Tom once said, ``is stay true to their heart.'' No one in the history of this institution has ever followed that injunction more faithfully than Tom Coburn has.

Tom Coburn has an unshakable faith in the goodness of America, and he has worked diligently with others when he could and alone, if necessary, to make sure government respects the people we serve-- respects their hopes and aspirations, their concerns and sacrifices. He has never forgotten he is the people's servant first and last, and they have never had a more genuine and determined champion.

I think Tom has often acted as the conscience of the Senate. He can be unmovable on matters of principle when to do otherwise would harm or do no good for the country. Tom Coburn is sometimes called ``Dr. No,'' affectionately most, if not all, of the time. He has held up more legislation that he thought ill served the public interest than any other Member of this body. He even placed a hold on one of his own bills that he thought no longer met his high standard of accountability after it was reported out of committee. I don't think the American taxpayer has ever had a greater defender than Tom Coburn.

I like to think I have taken a few principled stands when the situation has warranted it, and I have made myself an occasional nuisance in service to what I thought was a good cause. But I have never been so conscientious that I felt obliged to defeat my own legislation. That is a pretty high

standard of personal responsibility to meet and a character test of the first order. I am not sure many of us would pass it. I wouldn't. But then, as all his colleagues can attest, Tom Coburn is a person of the very highest character. He possesses the highest virtues--courage, humility, compassion--in an abundance. It has been an honor to serve with him.

As principled as he is, as unwavering as he can be when he believes it necessary, he has also been a brave and determined proponent of compromise when he believed it served the public interest, when it would help build a more prosperous and secure society with more opportunities for more people and brighter futures for our children.

We always have detractors. It comes with the job. Whether Tom was standing on principle or seeking a principled compromise, he stood up to criticism. He stood up to pressure. He stood up to threats and insults and whatever negative personal consequences he might suffer. He stood up to whatever came his way to do what was right for his country. He stood up for the American people, no matter how difficult it was. What better can you say about a public servant?

Tom and I worked together on a lot of things. We fought together to end earmarks and opposed other forms of wasteful spending. We worked together on oversight projects for the stimulus bill and highway trust fund spending. We also fought for a long time to let veterans decide where they could best receive health care. We made good progress on some issues and not enough on others, but Tom Coburn was always an example and an inspiration to me.

If I could speak more personally, Tom has been more than a paragon to me and to other Members of the Senate. He is first and foremost a kind, considerate, and loyal friend--a friend in good times and bad, a friend who brings out the best in you because he believes in the best part of you. I said earlier Tom Coburn sees the innate goodness in the American people. He also sees it in his colleagues, even when it isn't apparent to other observers.

We have shared happy times together, Tom and I, but Tom has the instinct and the kindness to be the kind of friend who is there when you need him--when you need him most, in moments that aren't so happy.

We all lead pretty good lives here. We get the chance to serve the greatest country in the world and, on occasion, to make history. We are honored and feted and praised more than we deserve. But as all human beings do, we have moments of worry and doubt and disappointment. Tom always has the knack for showing up when I need cheering up. He has made the point over the years of being company when you most need it.

Friendship is a virtue to Tom, and he means to live a virtuous life. You could be working on something with him or opposing each other on an issue, it doesn't matter. If you need him, he will be there for you with a kind word, a piece of advice, a little encouragement or just good company. There are too few people like that in anyone's life not to cherish the hell out of those who are. I cherish my friendship with Tom Coburn, and I always will.

The Senate will be a poorer place without Tom Coburn to set an example of public service for the rest of us. But in gratitude to him for his leadership and friendship, I will try a little harder to live up to his standards, and I hope he will let me know when I fall short.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I wish to begin by expressing my appreciation and admiration to the personnel who serve in our intelligence agencies, including the CIA, who are out there every day defending our Nation.

I have read the executive summary and I also have been briefed on the entirety of this report. I rise in support of the release--the long- delayed release--of the Senate Intelligence Committee's summarized unclassified review of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques that were employed by the previous administration to extract information from captured terrorists. It is a thorough and thoughtful study of practices that I believe not only failed their purpose to secure actionable intelligence to prevent further attacks on the United States and our allies, but actually damaged our security interests as well as our reputation as a force for good in the world.

I believe the American people have a right--indeed a responsibility-- to know what was done in their name, how these practices did or did not serve our interests, and how they comported with our most important values.

I commend Chairwoman Feinstein and her staff for their diligence in seeking a truthful accounting of policies I hope we will never resort to

again. I thank them for persevering against persistent opposition from many members of the intelligence community, from officials in two administrations, and from some of our colleagues.

The truth is sometimes a hard pill to swallow. It sometimes causes us difficulties at home and abroad. It is sometimes used by our enemies in attempts to hurt us. But the American people are entitled to it nonetheless. They must know when the values that define our Nation are intentionally disregarded by our security policies, even those policies that are conducted in secret. They must be able to make informed judgments about whether those policies and the personnel who supported them were justified in compromising our values, whether they served a greater good, or whether, as I believe, they stained our national honor, did much harm, and little practical good.

What were the policies? What was their purpose? Did they achieve it? Did they make us safer, less safe, or did they make no difference? What did they gain us? What did they cost us? What did they gain us? What did they cost us? The American people need the answers to these questions. Yes, some things must be kept from public disclosure to protect clandestine operations, sources, and methods, but not the answers to these questions. By providing them, the committee has empowered the American people to come to their own decisions about whether we should have employed such practices in the past and whether we should consider permitting them in the future.

This report strengthens self-government and ultimately, I believe, American security and stature in the world. I thank the committee for that valuable public service.

I have long believed some of these practices amounted to torture as a reasonable person would define it, especially but not only the practice of waterboarding, which is a mock execution and an exquisite form of torture. Its use was shameful and unnecessary, and, contrary to assertions made by some of its defenders and as the committee's report makes clear, it produced little useful intelligence to help us track down the perpetrators of 9/11 or prevent new attacks and atrocities.

I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. I know victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering. Most of all, I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies--our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights which are protected by international conventions the United States not only joined but for the most part authored.

I know too that bad things happen in war. I know that in war good people can feel obliged for good reasons to do things they would normally object to and recoil from. I understand the reasons that governed the decision to resort to these interrogation methods, and I know that those who approved them and those who used them were dedicated to securing justice for victims of terrorist attacks and to protecting Americans from further harm. I know their responsibilities were grave and urgent and the strain of their duty was onerous. I respect their dedication, and I appreciate their dilemma. But I dispute wholeheartedly that it was right for them to use these methods which this report makes clear were neither in the best interests of justice, nor our security, nor the ideals we have sacrificed so much blood and treasure to defend.

The knowledge of torture's dubious efficacy and my moral objection to the abuse of prisoners motivated my sponsorship of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which prohibits ``cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment'' of captured combatants, whether they wear a nation's uniform or not, and which passed the Senate by a vote of 90 to 9.

Subsequently, I successfully offered amendments to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which, among other things, prevented the attempt to weaken Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and broadened definitions in the War Crimes Act to make the future use of waterboarding and other ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' punishable as war crimes.

There was considerable misinformation disseminated then about what was and wasn't achieved using these methods in an effort to discourage support for the legislation. There was a good amount of misinformation used in 2011 to credit the use of these methods with the death of Osama bin Laden. And there is, I fear, misinformation being used today to prevent the release of this report, disputing its findings and warning about the security consequences of their public disclosure.

Will the report's release cause outrage that leads to violence in some parts of the Muslim world? Yes, I suppose that is possible and perhaps likely. Sadly, violence needs little incentive in some quarters of the world today. But that doesn't mean we will be telling the world something it will be shocked to learn. The entire world already knows we waterboarded prisoners. It knows we subjected prisoners to various other types of degrading treatment. It knows we used black sites, secret prisons. Those practices haven't been a secret for a decade. Terrorists might use the report's reidentification of the practices as an excuse to attack Americans, but they hardly need an excuse for that. That has been their life's calling for a while now.

What might come as a surprise not just to our enemies but to many Americans is how little these practices did aid our efforts to bring 9/ 11 culprits to justice and to find and prevent terrorist attacks today and tomorrow. That could be a real surprise since it contradicts the many assurances provided by intelligence officials on the record and in private that enhanced interrogation techniques were indispensable in the war against terrorism. And I suspect the objection of those same officials to the release of this report is really focused on that disclosure--torture's ineffectiveness--because we gave up much in the expectation that torture would make us safer--too much.

Obviously, we need intelligence to defeat our enemies, but we need reliable intelligence. Torture produces more misleading information than actionable intelligence. And what the advocates of harsh and cruel interrogation methods have never established is that we couldn't have gathered as good or more reliable intelligence from using humane methods.

The most important lead we got in the search for bin Laden came from using conventional interrogation methods. I think it is an insult to the many intelligence officers who have acquired good intelligence without hurting or degrading prisoners to assert that we can't win these wars without such methods. Yes, we can, and we will.

But in the end torture's failure to serve its intended purpose isn't the main reason to oppose its use. I have often said and I will always maintain that this question isn't about our enemies; it is about us. It is about who we were, who we are, and who we aspire to be. It is about how we represent ourselves to the world.

We have made our way in this often dangerous and cruel world not by just strictly pursuing our geopolitical interests but by exemplifying our political values and influencing other nations to embrace them. When we fight to defend our security, we fight also for an idea--not for a tribe or a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion or for a King but for an idea that all men are endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights. How much safer the world would be if all nations believed the same. How much more dangerous it can become when we forget it ourselves, even momentarily.

Our enemies act without conscience. We must not. This executive summary of the committee's report makes clear that acting without conscience isn't necessary. It isn't even helpful in winning this strange and long war we are fighting. We should be grateful to have that truth affirmed.

Now, let us reassert the contrary proposition: that is it essential to our success in this war that we ask those who fight it for us to remember at all times that they are defending a sacred ideal of how nations should be governed and conduct their relations with others-- even our enemies.

Those of us who give them this duty are obliged by history, by our Nation's highest ideals and the many terrible sacrifices made to protect them, by our respect for human dignity, to make

clear we need not risk our national honor to prevail in this or any war. We need only remember in the worst of times, through the chaos and terror of war, when facing cruelty, suffering, and loss, that we are always Americans and different, stronger, and better than those who would destroy us.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I come to the floor to praise the public service of and bid farewell to my friend and valued colleague from Nebraska, Senator Mike Johanns.

With my remarks, I celebrate not just Mike's last 6 years in the Senate but also his 30-plus years in public service that will culminate with the end of this term.

At the highest levels of government in both the legislative and executive branches, Mike's life of public service has been punctuated by great accomplishment. From the Lancaster County Board in Nebraska to the Lincoln City Council, from his service as mayor of Lincoln to his service as the 38th Governor of Nebraska, from his service as the 28th U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and throughout his tenure in the Senate, Mike has demonstrated a commitment to those with muted voices in our political system, including small business owners, veterans, those impaired by mental illness and most certainly America's farmers and ranchers.

In the Senate, Mike's leadership and bipartisan efforts to repeal purposeless tax reporting requirements in ObamaCare, his championing new trade agreements, and his contribution to the development and final passage of a new farm bill this year all describe a strong conservative legislator committed to stimulating economic growth through reduced government spending, lower tax rates, and reduced regulatory burdens on American business.

I have appreciated Mike's partnership on key legislation, including his joining me to cosponsor the bipartisan Congressional Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act of 2009. During the 112th Congress, we were both cosponsors of the Foreign Earnings Reinvestment Act, a bipartisan effort to let corporations reinvest earnings kept overseas by our high corporate tax rates back into the American economy.

I was also proud to join Mike as an original cosponsor of his bill, the Two-Year Regulatory Freeze Act of 2011, which sought to give the American economy a much needed reprieve to burdensome and confusing Federal regulations that frequently hinder economic growth. Mike was also an original cosponsor of the Jobs Through Growth Act, and many others.

I am also grateful that he joined in helping replenish the Forest Service's aging air tanker fleet. A decade ago the Forest Service had roughly 40 large air tankers to fight wildfires that burned millions of acres of land across Western States, including Nebraska and Arizona.

Today they own eight large air tankers. Senator Johanns and I saw an opportunity to transfer several excess Department of Defense aircraft to the Forest Service to temporarily address this shortage, and that has happened.

While Mike and I have had disagreements along the way, I have always respected his knowledge and experience as a farmer, foreign trade expert, and the Nation's former Agriculture Secretary.

I am proud of the areas where we agree: reining in certain farm subsidy programs, advocating for free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, and even working together to kill the proposed USDA catfish office--a little known $15 million program inside the last farm bill that we both highlighted as wasting taxpayer money and that, from a trade perspective, was negatively impacting our cattlemen and soy farmers.

We also agree on the need to help returning veterans seeking to reenter the workforce as beginning farmers, an effort he championed in our last farm bill. I have long applauded Senator Johanns for calling on Congress to pass laws to stop farm subsidies from going to millionaires while he was a sitting Secretary of Agriculture.

As much as I respect the substance of Mike's accomplishments in public service, I have valued how he has achieved them with a quiet, purposeful dignity and, indeed, a vibrant sense of humor. He has never been opposed to bipartisan cooperation whenever it is needed to further the interests of his constituents or the greater Nation.

For these reasons, his approach to governance in legislating has earned him the respect of colleagues and constituents across the political continuum. It should also serve as an example to all of us in this body who remain behind.

In an email Mike wrote to his friends last February announcing his decision not to seek reelection in 2014, Mike wrote: ``With everything in life, there is a time and a season.''

Well, to my friend and valued colleague, Mike Johanns, I bid fair winds and following seas in all that he and his lovely wife Stephanie do, and I thank him for his service and his friendship.

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

Mr. President, I wish to offer a few words of tribute to my departing colleague, Senator Carl Levin--a model of serious purpose, firm principle, and personal decency, and whose example ought to inspire the service of new and returning Senators. We could not aspire to better service than what he has given our country.

Carl and I have served together on the Senate Armed Services Committee for the better part of three decades. He is my senior in this body by 8 years and has been my chairman for more than 10 years in total. It has been a privilege to serve under his very able, honorable, and fair leadership.

Carl and I sit on opposite sides of the aisle. The difference is quite obvious on any number of issues, but I hope it is also obvious how much I admire and respect my friend from Michigan.

We have had our moments on the committee. Debate there can get a little passionate from time to time, perhaps a little more passionate on my part than Carl's, but that, as all my colleagues would surely attest, is my problem, not Carl's. We are, however, both proud of the committee's tradition of bipartisan cooperation which Carl has worked diligently to preserve and strengthen. We both know how important that tradition is to faithfully discharging our responsibilities to help maintain the defense of this country and do right by the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces. We both feel their example of selfless sacrifice would shame us if we let the committee descend into the partisan posturing that often makes it hard to get important work done in Congress.

When Members disagree in committee--often heatedly--it is because we feel passionately about whatever issue is in dispute. Even then we try to behave civilly and respectfully to each other, and we do not let our disagreements prevent us from completing the committee's business. Carl won't let us. That we have managed to keep that reputation in these contentious times is a tribute to Carl Levin. He has kept the committee focused on its duties and not on the next election or the latest rush- to-the-barricades partisan quarrel. He does so in a calm, measured, patient, and thoughtful manner. He seems, in fact, to be calmer and more patient the more heated our disagreements are. As members' emotions and temperatures rise, Carl's unperturbed composure and focus bring our attention back to the business at hand. You could safely say he and I have slightly different leadership styles. I am gentler and less confrontational. But Carl's style seems to work for him. It works well for the committee too, for the armed services, and for the country.

The committee has a heavy workload every year, and Carl manages to keep us all in harness and working together at a good pace and with a constructive, results-oriented approach that is the envy of the dozen or so lesser committees of the Senate. Our principal responsibility is to produce the Defense authorization bill--one of the most important and comprehensive pieces of legislation the Senate considers on an annual bases. The committee has never failed to report the bill, and the Senate has never failed to pass it. That is not an accomplishment that some of the lesser committees I just referred to can claim every year, and no one deserves more of the credit than Carl Levin.

When Carl Levin first joined the committee, he explained his reason for seeking the assignment this way:

I had never served, and I thought there was a big gap in

terms of my background and, frankly, felt it was a way of

providing service.

He might never have served in the military, but he has surely served the military well, and he has served the national interests our Armed Forces protect in an exemplary manner that the rest of us would be wise to emulate.

More recently, I have had the honor and privilege of serving alongside Carl on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. His tireless efforts and steadfast dedication to exposing misconduct and abuse by financial institutions and government regulators have set a new standard for thoughtful and thorough congressional investigations.

Whether the topic was the 2008 financial crisis, Swiss banking secrecy, or JPMorgan's ``London Whale'' debacle, professionals in the industry and the public at large knew they could count on Carl Levin to get to the bottom of it with authoritative reports and hearings. Carl's tenacity in uncovering wrongdoing sparked significant changes in the financial sector.

I also commend Carl Levin on zealously and effectively pursuing his investigations in a way that has furthered the subcommittee's longstanding tradition of bipartisanship. While Carl Levin and I may have had our disagreements, we never let them get in the way of finding common ground where we could.

While Carl's retirement may come as a relief to some of those on Wall Street, his patience, thoughtfulness, and commitment to bipartisanship will be deeply missed on the subcommittee and in the Senate.

Indeed, from Carl Levin's long and distinguished service in the Senate, Carl has obtained the respect of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We all listen to him, and we listen closest to him on the occasions when we disagree with him. That, in my view, is a great compliment from one Senator to another. It is a tribute paid to only the most respected Members.

Of course, the greatest compliment one Senator can pay another is to credit him or her as a person who keeps his or her word. That has become too rare in Washington but not so in my experiences with Carl Levin. He has never broken his word to me. He has never backed out of a deal, even when doing so would have been personally and politically advantageous. When we are in agreement on an issue, Carl usually argues more effectively than I can, and when we disagree, we usually find a way to settle our dispute without abandoning our responsibilities. Carl Levin deserves most of the credit for that too.

One of the great satisfactions in life is to fight for a common cause with someone you haven't always agreed with, someone whose background, views, and personality are different from yours. Yet you discover that despite your differences, you have always been on the same side on the big things.

Thank you, Carl, for the privilege and for your friendship and example. The committee is going to miss you, the Senate is going to miss you, the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces are going to miss you, and I will miss you a lot.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I don't usually object to the appointments and nominations by the administration to various ambassadorial positions around the world. I also understand there are numbers of political supporters, financial supporters, and that this is characteristic of Republican and Democratic administrations alike. It has never disturbed me when I have observed nominees to a Caribbean country or maybe to London or Paris or Berlin being rewarded for support both financial and otherwise. But now we are at a point where, according to the Washington Post, modern Presidents have generally followed a 70-30 rule on ambassadorial appointments--where 70 percent are career foreign service and 30 percent are political appointees. President Obama has defied this historic bipartisan political practice, and in his second term a shocking 53 percent of ambassadorial nominees have been political. This brings his 2-term average to 37--far more than any administration in the past. What is very interesting is that some of these nominees are in very sensitive positions around the world. The nomination of Ms. Colleen Bell is probably the most egregious example of that.

Hungary is a close ally--in many respects--but there is no doubt that since taking office in 2010 the Hungarian Prime Minister, Mr. Viktor Orban, has centralized power, has faced scrutiny due to actions that critics charge are inconsistent with democratic principles and practices. His government has reduced the independence of Hungary's courts, pushed through controversial changes to the constitution, and placed acute restrictions on nongovernmental organizations. In other words, this is a very important country. This is a very important country where bad things are going on.

Ms. Bell's experiences have been largely relegated to producing the television soap opera ``The Bold and the Beautiful.'' Now, I am sure television viewing is important in Hungary, but the fact is this nominee is totally unqualified for this position in this country.

Now, if it were, as I say, some Caribbean country or some other, I would understand that. But here we are in a relationship with a country where, according to Bloomberg News, ``Orban says he seeks to end liberal democracy in Hungary. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said he wants to abandon liberal democracy in favor of an `illiberal state,' citing Russia and Turkey as examples.''

By the way, we have an excellent DCM there in Hungary who has been doing a great job.

Ms. Bell has two qualifications. One is she is a producer of a television soap opera. She has no experience in foreign policy or national security, no familiarity with the language, country, or the region, has never been there, and lacks meaningful knowledge of history or economics. Her only significant qualification is that she bundled, as the word is used, $800,000 to President Obama in the last election, and as part of the California delegation to the 2012 Democratic convention, she bundled more than $2.1 million for President Obama's reelection effort.

I want to repeat again that I understand there are awards for political support and it has grown with ``bundling.'' But when we send a person who doesn't know the language--has never been to the country, has no familiarity in foreign policy or national security--to a nation of this importance, then, my friends, we are making a serious mistake.

The Hungarian Prime Minister is distancing himself from the values shared by most European Union nations. Orban said civil society organizers receiving funding from abroad needed to be ``monitored,'' as he considered those to be agents of foreign powers. We are talking about the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, Freedom House, and others.

He said:

We're not dealing with civil society members but paid

political activists who are trying to help foreign interests

here.

Amazing. Orban, who has fueled employment with public works projects, said he wants to replace welfare societies with a workfare state. But the main problem is that Mr. Orban is cozying up to Vladimir Putin. He has now entered into a nuclear deal, and he is practicing the same kinds of antidemocratic practices as what seems to be his role model-- Vladimir Putin.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to Mr. Reid from the 15 former presidents of the American Foreign Service Association be printed in the Record.

They say:

As former presidents of the American Foreign Service

Association, the professional association and trade union

career members of the Foreign Service, we urge you to oppose

granting Senate consent to these three candidates . . .

They mention George Tsunis to Norway, Colleen Bell to Hungary, and Noah Mamet to Argentina. I think we should pay attention to these former distinguished members of the diplomatic corps.

I urge my colleagues for once to vote against a totally unsuitable nominee to be Ambassador to a very critical country in a struggle that is going to go on for a long time, as Colonel Vladimir Putin tries to extend the reach of Russia and restore the old Russian Empire. We will be sending a message by this appointment that it really isn't that important. I urge my colleagues to cast a ``no'' vote.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

We are about to vote on a totally unqualified individual to be Ambassador to a nation which is very important to our national security interests. Her qualifications are as the producer of the television soap opera ``The Bold and the Beautiful.'' She contributed $800,000 to Obama in the last election and bundled more than $2.1 million for President Obama's reelection effort.

I am not against political appointees. I understand how the game is played, but here we are, a nation that is on the verge of ceding its sovereignty to a neofacist dictator--getting in bed with Vladimir Putin--and we are going to send the producer of ``The Bold and the Beautiful'' as our Ambassador.

I urge my colleagues to put a stop to this foolishness. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I honor a truly remarkable diplomat and legendary statesman. After 33 years of service to our Nation, Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns is retiring from the U.S. Department of State. Having served under 10 Secretaries and twice postponing his retirement, Ambassador Burns has had an enormous impact on the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy and I would like to recognize his many years of distinguished service and thank him for his tireless efforts.

Ambassador Burns joined the Foreign Service in 1982 and, within a year of joining, he had already made a name for himself as someone willing to go above and beyond the call of duty. Over the course of his 33 years in the Foreign Service, he has served in countless posts, including as Ambassador to Jordan, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Ambassador to Russia, and Under Secretary for Political Affairs. Since 2011, he has served as Deputy Secretary of State, holding the rare distinction of being only the second career diplomat to rise to the position.

It is a testament to both his character and unique skills that nearly every person who has had the pleasure of meeting Ambassador Burns has a story to tell about it. He has deftly steered our foreign policy through countless challenges over the past three decades and handled with skill sensitive diplomatic missions that few were willing and capable of taking on. That he has one of the most distinguished tenures as a career Foreign Service officer in memory is made all the more remarkable by his modesty and humility.

Ambassador Burns embodies the mission of the Department of State at its finest. He has been a mentor for generations of Department of State personnel and is an inspiration to all public servants, myself included. America is stronger and the world a better place thanks to his service. And while the Department of State will feel his absence, I am relieved to know that he will continue to play an important and constructive role in global affairs through his new position as president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. I thank him for his willingness to serve our country and I wish him and his family the best as they embark on a new journey.

I always appreciate it when the Senator from New Hampshire defers to me--a rare occasion, I might add.

I rise today to speak in support of the continuing resolution on which we will vote. I do not do so because I approve of the bulk of the CR. I certainly do not approve of the process that got us here. It is a broken, dysfunctional process that deserves and has received the scorn and disdain of the American people. Long ago we should have been taking up these bills one by one. But that is not why I come to the floor today

I am voting for this CR for one particular reason: It would help the Department of Defense train and equip moderate, vetted Syrian opposition forces to fight the barbaric terrorist army that calls itself the Islamic State, commonly known as ISIS. I will support it. It is long overdue support for the brave Syrians who are fighting on the frontlines against a common terrorist enemy.

The current plan could have been decisive 2 years ago. Two years ago it could have been decisive. It is not now. We are talking about 5,000 whom we are going to train over a period of a year or more. They are going to be fighting against an estimated 31,500 fighters.

There are many seminal events that have taken place in this conflict. One of the main ones was when 2 years ago the President overruled the major players in his national security team when he overruled their unanimous and passionate argument to arm and train the Free Syrian Army.

The administration says that U.S. forces will not have a combat role. Why does the President insist on continuing to tell the enemy what he will not do? Why is it that the President of the United States keeps telling the people who are slaughtering thousands: Don't worry, we won't commit ground troops. Why does he have to keep saying that? Obviously--at least one would draw the conclusion--because of political reasons.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had this to say. I do not know of a man who is more respected than former Secretary of Defense Gates under both Republican and Democratic Presidents. He said:

The reality is, they're not going to be able to be

successful against ISIS strictly from the air or strictly

depending on the Iraqi forces or the Peshmerga or the Sunni

tribes acting on their own.

Gates continued:

So there will be boots on the ground if there is going to

be any hope of success in the strategy. I think that by

continuing to repeat that--

That the United States will not put boots on the ground--

the President, in effect, traps himself.

That is the opinion not of John McCain and Lindsey Graham, it is the opinion of Robert Gates and every military expert I have talked to, ranging from the architects of the surge, to former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and, confidentially, leaders in uniform today.

The President said he will expand airstrikes in Syria, but they have testified that the President will not have

forward air controllers on the ground to direct airstrikes, which makes them obviously effective.

As we read today in the Wall Street Journal--this is remarkable, my friends--President Obama will be personally signing off on every airstrike in Syria. I say to my colleagues: I saw that movie before--it was called Vietnam--many years ago when President Lyndon Johnson used to select the targets in the Oval Office or the Situation Room. Now we have a President of the United States who is selecting targets of which he has no fundamental knowledge whatsoever. It is really remarkable.

We are going to train and equip these people to fight. Yet we are not going to take out the assets Bashar Assad uses to kill them--the air attacks, the barrel bombs; the indiscriminate killing of innocent women, men, and children; 192,000 dead in Syria; 150,000 languishing in his prisons. We are not going to take out or even give these people, the Free Syrian Army, the weapons with which to counter these air attacks which are so brutal and outrageous.

I would like to yield for my friend from South Carolina to make a couple of comments. One, the argument I have heard made here is that there are no moderates in Syria. Well, I think arguably one of the most important and impressive individuals I have run into is Ambassador Ford, who has really been a hero in this whole exercise. He says there are moderates in Syria. They can fight. They have been fighting. They have been doing incredible work with incredible sacrifice. I am trying to find his quote from when he testified before the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. He did a magnificent job in doing so, as usual, in my view.

I cannot seem to find it, but I would point out that he says not only can they fight, but they have been fighting, and they have been doing a heroic job in doing so. That is also the opinion of people who know. So there are moderates. If we train and equip them, they can be effective. The problem is that we have not done too little, it is we have done too much. We have weakened Assad and hurt his ability to fight ISIS. ISIS is a problem for the Middle East.

If ISIS is a problem for the Middle East, I wonder what the Australians think today? Australian police detained 15 people Thursday in a major counterterrorism operation, saying the intelligence indicated that a random violent attack was being planned in Australia. We know what their object is. It is to strike the United States of America.

I say in response to these uninformed colleagues of mine who say the Free Syrian Army cannot fight: Syrian forces are seen stepping up attacks on rebels as U.S. sets site on ISIS.

Time after time there have been places ISIS has controlled and the Free Syrian Army has come in and then Bashar Assad attacks because they want to defeat them.

The fact is I see the critics come here on the floor of the Senate and talk about why everything is wrong, why nobody will fight, why we cannot arm the right people. Well, what is their solution? Do they reject the premise articulated by ISIS that they want to attack the United States? Do they contradict Mr. Baghdadi, who, when he left our prison camp, Bucca, said: I will see you in New York. Is that what this is all about? Of course it is a threat to the United States of America. For us to do nothing obviously will be a serious mistake.

I yield 5 minutes for my colleague from South Carolina.

How much time remains?

I wish to add, again I found a quote from the testimony of Robert Ford, an unusual man, our Ambassador to Syria and a man who literally risked his own life. In his report he said: Many Americans questioned whether there are any moderates left in the Syrian armed opposition. There are. They are fighting the Islamic State and the Assad regime both. They are, not surprisingly, hard pressed, and they could very much use our help.

I assure my colleagues, from my many visits there and knowing these people, there are moderates in Syria today who will fight and are fighting. Unfortunately, they are being attacked both from ISIS and from Bashar Assad. This brings me to we need to negate Bashar Assad's air attacks and capabilities. Otherwise, we are going to train and equip these young people and send them into death, which would be needless.

There are several articles, one in the New Republic entitled ``We Can't Destroy ISIS Without Destroying Bashar al Assad First;'' another one, ``Assad Policies Aided Rise of Islamic State Militant Group;'' another one, ``Blame Assad First for ISIS' Rise.''

What was most disturbing yesterday about the Secretary of State's statements was when he said: Well, ISIL first. You cannot sequence them. They are too closely tied, and we cannot defeat ISIL in Syria if we leave Bashar Assad with his air capabilities.

There are no good options. A series of decisions have been made which led us to the point we are today, all based on the fundamental belief that the United States could leave the area and everything would take care of itself. What happened was that we left a vacuum that was filled by bad people. Now there is a threat to the United States of America.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, but I also believe it is an act of cowardice that we didn't take up the bill separately, debate, amend, and vote on an issue of this utmost seriousness where, in one way or another--whether the President wants to admit it--we are again sending Americans into harm's way.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask to be recognized to speak as in morning business for such time as I may consume and engage in a colloquy with my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Graham.

Today, Senator Graham and I, on the 13th anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001--this anniversary--sadly, and unfortunately, we cannot agree and we cannot say, as President Obama did last night, that America is safer.

In fact, in many respects, America is in more danger than at any time since the end of the Cold War. We look around the world at the challenges, the aggression, the provocations, and the continued slaughter of innocent Ukrainians.

It is a classic example of what happens when the United States of America decides to withdraw from the world and create a vacuum. That vacuum is filled by the forces of evil, innocents throughout the world suffer, and America's security is threatened.

So I strongly disagree--and I believe that most objective observers would strongly disagree--with the President's assertion last night that America is safer. By no objective measurement is America safer. In fact, when we look at Twitter and Facebook, we will see that ISIS is threatening the United States of America and urging others to come to the United States of America and attack the United States of America.

Yesterday, from a hearing before the Department of Homeland Security, it was very clear that our border is not secure. That is a recipe for at least attempts by those of ISIS who have dedicated themselves to the destruction of the United States of America to be made possible.

Mr. Baghdadi, the head of ISIS, was once a resident in the U.S.-run prison camp in Iraq called Camp Bucca. He spent 4 years there and then left. On his way out he said to his American captures: ``I'll see you guys in New York.'' I am not making that up. He said: ``I'll see you guys in New York.'' The leader of ISIS, Mr. Baghdadi's message has been: Attack and destroy the United States of America.

So, no, Mr. President, America is not safer. In fact, because of a feckless foreign policy, America is in greater danger than it has been, in some respects, in my lifetime--not in all but in some.

The fact is the President of the United States sees ISIS as some kind of terrorist organization. It is not. ISIS is a terrorist army. ISIS has the largest area in history of wealth, of military equipment and capability than of any terrorist organization in history, and they spread in an area larger than the size of the State of Indiana.

I would like to say the President got some things right in his speech on ISIS. He seems to have read the op-ed piece my colleague Senator Graham and I wrote in the New York Times 2 weeks ago because he adopted most of our proposals--most but not all.

The President compared his plan to the counterterrorism approach he has taken in Somalia and Yemen. It is so disturbing to think that a strategy against ISIS would be the same as against Al Qaeda in Somalia and Yemen. There are terrorist organizations in Somalia and Yemen and, yes, we have been killing with drones, but we have by no means defeated them.

To compare what ISIS has done and the slaughter that ISIS is carrying out to the terrorist organizations in Somalia and Yemen reflects a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the President of the United States of the threat that we face.

The problem also is that even Al Qaeda has not been defeated in those countries. The President says he wants to degrade and defeat the way they are attacking Al Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia--but they are not defeated.

So what the President proposed last night can possibly, if done correctly, degrade ISIS, but it can't destroy ISIS. And we must destroy ISIS. Sooner or later, according to our heads of intelligence--whether it be the Director of the CIA or the Director of the FBI or the Secretary of Homeland Security--they want to attack the United States. Their goal is to attack the United States of America.

So let's start with what the President got right. He described the right goal: to degrade and to ultimately destroy ISIS. He called for expanding air strikes, to go on offense against ISIS. He explained the need to hit ISIS both in Iraq and Syria. He called for training and arming moderate Syrian opposition forces, and he described elements of a comprehensive strategy--diplomatic, economic, and military--all of which Senator Graham and I have long championed.

He talked about the formation of a coalition--his Secretary of State has said he wanted as many as 40 nations. So far there are 9, and the interesting thing is there is not a single Middle Eastern country that has joined this so-called coalition.

Why is that? Is it because they are not afraid of ISIS? Of course they are afraid of ISIS. But they don't trust the United States of America. I hear that directly from leaders all over the Middle East.

They don't trust us because of the President's bungling, incredibly bad decision after he once said that if Syria crossed certain reds lines and used chemical weapons, then we would respond. They crossed that line. He then said we were going to respond, and then, after a 45- minute walk with his chief of staff, he announced to the world that we were not going to strike; he was going to Congress, knowing full well he would not get that permission from Congress. That nuance was lost on countries in the Middle East that were prepared to join us with air strikes into Syria.

So it is not surprising. It is not surprising at all that so far the President and his Secretary of State have been unable to convince any of these Middle Eastern countries--and we need them. We need them very badly.

One of the main things the President didn't say and should have said is that he recognizes he made a mistake. Every President has made mistakes. Certainly George W. Bush did in Iraq. He at least had the courage to fire his Secretary of Defense and adopt the surge which basically stabilized Iraq. It had stabilized Iraq--before we made the decision not to do so.

Every one of the President's military advisers--the smartest people that any of us know: General Petraeus, General Keen, General Allen--I could go down the list--argued strenuously for leaving a residual force behind. The President of the United States decided not to. Now we are trying to rewrite history and say: Well, the President really wanted to.

Find me one statement the President of the United States made publicly that he wanted to leave a residual force behind, and I can find you 50 where he bragged about the last combat troop had left Iraq and we had left a safe, stable, prosperous Iraq behind--a lot of howlers about how well we had done in Iraq.

If we had left a residual force, the situation in Iraq would not be where it is today, which allowed Iraqi security forces to weaken, squandered our influence in Iraq, and harmed our ability to check Prime Minister Maliki's worst instincts.

Then there is his failure to support and arm the Free Syrian Army 2 years ago. I have been in Syria. I know how brave these people are. I know how disappointed they were when we failed to arm and equip them.

Two years ago, his entire national security team--including his Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton--strongly urged the President of the United States to arm, train, and equip the Free Syrian Army. The President of the United States turned them down. The President of the United States overruled the unanimous opinion of his national security team. That, my friends, was a huge impact--again giving rise to ISIS, giving Bashar al-Assad the ability and capability to slaughter innocent Syrians.

It breaks my heart that 192,000 Syrians have been massacred by Bashar al-Assad. He continues to drop these barrel bombs which are horrible killers.

Bashar al-Assad continues to have 150,000 Syrians dying in his prison camps.

I wish every American could see those pictures that were smuggled out of the tortured, killed, and starved-to-death Syrians--192,000 of them. We could have turned that around 2 years ago.

Then 3 years ago was when the President of the United States said: It is not a matter of whether Bashar al-Assad is leaving. It is a matter of when. He also said 3 years ago: It is time for Bashar Assad to leave.

Yet Bashar Assad today continues to slaughter innocent men, women, and children. Millions of refugees have fled the country. The horrors of this butchering continue, and what changed?

One aspect that changed the battlefield equation, when the President of the United States said it is not a matter of if but when, was when Iran--which some now are asking us to work with--sent in Hezbollah-- 5,000 of them from Lebanon--and it changed the momentum on the battlefield.

Senator Lindsey Graham and I were called over to the White House. We went in to meet the President, after the President had said that he was going to strike Syria. We sat there, and the President looked us in the eye and he said, I want to do three things: degrade Bashar Assad, upgrade the Free Syrian Army, and change the battlefield equation.

Senator Graham and I, taking his word for it, went out in the driveway and said: We are backing the President of the United States.

Several days later, without being notified, we were stunned to read that the President had changed his mind. He had not told us the truth in the Oval Office. That is a unique experience for me, where I have been in the Oval Office under many Presidents.

I am confident the steps the President laid out last night can degrade ISIS. But that is not sufficient to protect our people. We need Special Forces and advisers on the ground.

The President continues to say there will be no boots on the ground. There are 1,700 boots on the ground right now. There will be more boots on the ground, but they won't be in the form of combat units. If we are really going to defeat ISIS, we are going to need close air support, forward air controllers, intelligence capability, Special Forces, and many others. We will soon have more than 1,500 there, and there will have to be more.

Tell the American people the truth, Mr. President. Those young men and women are going there, they are going to be in harm's way, and they are going to be exposed to combat. Tell the

American people the truth. We need to do a lot more.

I wish to mention one other aspect before I turn to my friend from South Carolina, who was with me in 2008 at a townhall meeting.

A man stood up at the town hall meeting and said: Senator McCain, how long are we going to be in Iraq?

I said: We may be in Iraq for a long, long time because although we have sustained this situation and we have stabilized it--that was after the surge had been implemented and succeeded--it is very fragile. We are going to have to leave a residual force behind--as we did in Japan, in Germany, Korea, Bosnia, where we have left residual forces behind for the sake of stability.

Well, in case any of my colleagues have forgotten, I was pilloried: McCain wants to stay in Iraq.

Yes, I wanted a residual force in Iraq--not to engage in combat but to provide stability, intelligence, and other capabilities. Now we know what happened when we left Iraq. Now we know the consequences.

I hope all those people who called me all of the names which I am not going to repeat here will render an apology, because I was right. I said that if we left Iraq completely, then we risked the great danger of it deteriorating.

I say to my colleagues, the situation today didn't have to be this way. None of the challenges we now face in Iraq and Syria had to be this dire. The rise of ISIS did not have to happen. We have lost too much time and missed too many opportunities. But we can still defeat our terrorist enemies, and we must protect our people and our partners and secure our national interests in the Middle East.

The President's plan, if he implements it--if he understands that this is not Yemen and Somalia, if he understands that this is a direct threat to the United States of America, if he comes to Congress and asks for--not welcomes, but asks for--debate and amendments and votes that show the American people's representatives will support them in this effort, then I think we have a chance of succeeding. But I have to tell my colleagues I am not very optimistic from the start I saw last night.

I would like to yield to my colleague from South Carolina.

If my colleague will yield for one question.

I note the presence of our colleague from California, so I will make it short.

Last night I had an exchange with the former spokesperson for the White House, and again this issue came up and the assertion, the incredible assertion that it was the Iraqis who did not want to leave a residual force behind--a statement that continues to amaze me, that anyone would believe such a thing, particularly given the circumstances which the Iraqis were left under, including--by the way, every single one of our military leaders urged that we leave a residual force behind, and many of them, such as General Keen, General Petraeus, and others, predicted what would happen if we pulled everybody out.

I wonder if for the record the Senator from South Carolina would relate the experience we had in Iraq and our personal experience with regard to the issue of residual force behind.