something happened, you want to have a backup because we have got to get satellites into space to protect our national security, and we've got to do it over this period of time from now until the end of 2022. and, therefore, how do you keep them going alive if you eliminate the ability of being able to buy the russian engine? that's what all of the very emotional and very well-meaning speeches out here on the floor have been about. in one case united launch alliance. in another case, spacex. for the good of the country, we've got to have both until we can develop and test and fly successfully the replacement

engine for the russian engine. as we speak, these discussions, by the way, continue that have been going on over the past several weeks and with intensity over the past few days. it is certainly my hope that we are going to get resolution and can get an agreement on this on a way to go forward so that we can get this issue behind us and we move on with the defense bill that is so important to the future of this country. so, mr. president, i wanted to lay out the predicate of what this is all about when you start getting into the weeds about this number of launches and that number of launches and all of it

boils down to what this senator has just shared. i hope we get resolution. since i'm basically an optimist, i think we will. mr. president, i would yield the floor.

mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum call. the senate is recognized. mr. mccain: okay. mr. president, just to continue what i, with some reluctance as i do on the rocket engines, as i mentioned earlier there was an individual who was reported who

was one of the head executives of u.l.a. and in the recording, he talks about u.l.a. and the relationship and how they have an in with the department of defense and i just quote from his, from his recording. he was talking about the rocket engine. he said unfortunately it's built by the soviet union. there's a couple of people, one person in particular. this guy right here, john mccain, who basically doesn't like us. remember, he's an employee of u.l.a. he's like this with elan musk. elan musk says why don't you go after united launch alliance and see if you can get that engine to be outlawed. he was abling to get legislation through the, basically got our number of engines down that we could use for national security space competitions down to four. we needed nine. then he got his friend. i told you about that big

factory down in alabama, in decatur. and basically this is richard shelby. senator richard shelby from alabama, both republicans. and he basically at the last minute, in december of last year, they were doing an omnibus bill to keep the government running and what he did is talked to john mccain and parachuted it in in the middle of the night and added some money into the appropriations. shelby's in charge of appropriations. he says ignore mccain's language and basically allowed united launch alliance to pick any engine they want from any country abroad. then he goes on to say, we can't afford that anymore because the price points are coming down as lope as $60 million per launch vehicle and the best you'll see us bid at $125 million or twice that number. and if you were to take an add in that capabilities cost it is closer to $200 million.

spacex will take them to court if they don't, so they have demonstrated ability to say if you don't allow us to compete on an apples to apples to oranges, we will take you to court and you will lose. if you saw recently, they bid the second g.p.s. launch, u.l.a. opted to not bid that because the government was not happy with us not bidding that contract because they had felt that they bent over backwards to lean the field in our advantage. i repeat, this is what an executive of u.l.a. said. because the government was not happy with us for not bidding that contract because they had felt that they had bent over backwards to lean the field in our advantage. that is from an executive of u.l.a. is there any better evidence of what he said? we even said we don't bid because we saw it as a cost shoot up between us and spacex so now we're going to have to

take and figure out how to bid these things much lower cost. and the government can't just say u.l.a. has got a great track record. they've got 105 launches in a row and 100% mission success and we can give it to them on a silver platter. even their costs are two or three times as high. two or three times as high. mr. president, this is what makes the american people cynical about the way we do business. i suggest the absence of a quorum. before i do that, we're going to be moving the amendments on the interpreters and guantanamo and i would alert my colleagues we'll be doing that shortly. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: it is so ordered. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my military fellow dave deptula be allowed floor privileges for the remainder of the congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i rise to speak in support of what we have been doing on the senate floor the past two weeks, moving forward on the national defense authorization act. i would like to pay a

compliment, my deepest respect to the chairman of the armed services committee, to the ranking member and all the members of the armed services committee who have been focused on this bill that we have been putting forward in this congress, in every congress for the last half century. mr. president, our forces are under strain at a time when henry kissinger quoted before the armed services committee -- quote -- that the united states has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the second world war, and here are what some of our top military officials have told our committee. told our committee about the threats that are rising globally and the dramatic reduction in our military forces. the chief of staff of the army, general mark milley, recently stated that due to cuts and

threats, that the army is -- quote -- at a state of high military risk when it comes to being -- to defend our interests. mr. president, that's a very, very serious statement by the chief of staff of the army. high military risk for our military and the ability for the u.s. army to do its mission. he also said that when it came to russia and its new aggressiveness, we were -- quote -- outranged and outgunned. let me spend a little bit of time on the new challenge from russia. there are provisions, many in this bill, which is why it's so important, that will strengthen our military threat with regard to russia. something that as the senator from alaska i am very concerned about. mr. president, nobody spoke more eloquently and compellingly about our country's credibility than president reagan when he stated his philosophy with

dealing with our potential adversaries was -- quote -- we maintain the peace through our present, weakness only invites aggression, and he matched his rhetoric with credible action, and that's what we need to do with regard to the ndaa and that's why it's so important that we move forward and pass this bill. but it's the russian threat that's not just in europe but it's also in the arctic, and those threats we are seeing more and more in committee testimony on what the russians are doing. just take, for example, four new arctic brigades, a new arctic command, 14 operational airfields in the russian arctic by the end of this year, up to 50 airfields by 2020. a 30% increase in russian special forces in the arctic.

40, 40 russian-owned, government-owned icebreakers with 11 additional icebreakers in development right now, including nuclear icebreakers. huge land claims in the arctic. increased long-range air patrols with bare bombers, the most since the cold war which pilots in alaska are intercepting these russian bombers on a weekly basis, and a redeployment of two sophisticated s-400 air defense systems, again in the arctic. why are they doing this? because it's a strategic place, new transportation routes, enormous resources, and the secretary of defense, our own secretary of defense stated in testimony that he realized we were late to the arctic, given how strategic and important it is. right now we have no arctic port

infrastructure. two icebreakers, that's it. no plans to increase arctic-capable special forces, and a lack of surveillance capabilities in this strategic region of the world. why do i mention this, mr. president? because in this ndaa, we start to address the problem. just like we did in last year's ndaa, we start to lay the foundation of having a strategic vision of what's going on in the arctic, the way the russians are, and we're being prepared in an area of the world that is absolutely critical to the united states security. so provisions include the first steps to build up an appropriate strategic arctic port. we will also build up our arctic domain awareness, and we will have a much better sense of what is going on in this region, not only with regard to the russians

but the chinese are doing in this critical area of the world. mr. president, make no mistake, america is an arctic nation. we're an arctic nation because of my state, the state of alaska. this ndaa begins the important process to start addressing the strategic concerns we're seeing in the arctic and securing our nation in a way that's important for all of us. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: after some discussion with the senator from new hampshire, the senator from missouri, the senator from south carolina and the senator from kansas, i request a colloquy with those senators. okay. we're going to propose unanimous

consent agreement that the senate take up and pass the -- both the issue of the interpret ers for our afghan allies and the issue of guantanamo bay. first i know there may be or is objections to it, so we will wait for those individuals since it will require their presence on the floor. i just want to say a few words about the s.i.b. program. now, the fact is the senator from colorado, maybe the senator from alabama, maybe the senator from someplace else has an ax to grind here. they didn't get a vote on their amendment. they didn't get their vote, so by god, nobody's going to get a vote. do you know what they neglect

here? we're talking about the lives of the men who took care of our men and women in the military. they virtually saved their lives. and they're letting their parochial reasons because they didn't get their vote to object. my friends, that is not what the job of a united states senator should be. general david petraeus, throughout my time in uniform, i saw how important our in-country allies are in the performance of our missions. many of our afghan allies have not only been mission-essential, serving as the eyes and ears of our own people, they have risked their own lives and their family's lives in the line of duty. protecting these allies is as much a matter of american national morality as it is a -- as it is american national security. so the senators who come and object disagree with an effort we're making on the issue of

american marylandity in the eyes of general david petraeus and general nicholson, who is over there now, he says basically the same thing. they followed and supported our troops in combat at great personal risk, ensuring the safety and effectiveness of coalition members on the ground, many have been injured or killed in the line of duty, a testament to their commitment, resolve and dedication to support our interests. continuing our promise of the american dream is more than in our national interests. it is a testament to our decency and long-standing nation of honoring our allies. that's from general nicholson, who is over there now. there is no more admired diplomat in america than ryan crocker. this is -- he states this is a very personal issue for me. i was u.s. ambassador to iraq from 2002-2009 and from afghanistan from 2011-2012.

i observed firsthand the courage of the citizens who risked their lives trying to help their own countries by helping the united states. it takes a special kind of heroism, a special kind of heroism for them to serve alongside of us. general stanly mcchrystal, i ask for your help by appropriating additional siv's to bring our allies to safety in america. they risked their own and family's lives in the line of duty. then we have another owe and i'll stop with this -- general campbell who says the same thing. they frequently live in fear and they or their families will be targeted for kidnappings and death. many have suffered their fate -- this fate already. the s.i.v. program offers hope

that their sacrifices on our behalf will not be forgotten. you know, i would hope that the senator who comes over to object to this act of humanitarian of moral obligation as stated by these respected military leaders, that they wouldn't because they didn't get a vote on their amendment, be a reason to stop this act that is a moral obligation of this country. well, if they come over and object, then they've got their priorities badly screwed up. and if these people are killed, then they'll have nobody to answer to but their families. so i hope that we will pass this by unanimous consent, and not have for a parochial, their own self-ish reason some senator come and object.

i yield to the senator from new hampshire, senator shaheen. mrs. shaheen: thank you, senator mccain, and thank you for your leadership and thanks to senator jack reed for his leadership on this issue. as you point out, there are real lives at stake here. if we are not able to continue the special immigrant visa program for those afghans who have helped us during the conflict in afghanistan, then we know that the taliban has already murdered a number of them, their family members, and so as you point out, to have someone object to going forward with this amendment, not related to the program at all but because people have other personal issues that they want to address, it would be unfortunate and not in this

country's interest. you know, what we're actually hoping we can vote on today is a carefully crafted amendment. it addresses the legitimate concerns that people had raised about this program. we spent hours over the last few days and last night trying to come to some agreement to address those issues. and i think the legislation before us does that. so the concern as i understand today isn't about this program and what's about in this program. it's about individuals who have their own issues unrelated to this program that they want to see addressed. and i understand that. we've all got our issues, but that's not what we ought to be voting on at this point. you know, you pointed out that ryan crocker who served both in afghanistan and iraq has talked about the importance of this program as have so many of our

generals and those who have served. i want to quote from an op-ed piece that he wrote last month about the importae of congress addressing this program. and he said, "in an era of partisan rancor, this has been an area where republicans and democrats have acted together. congress has continued to support policies aimed at pocketing our wartime allies by renewing the afghanistan s.i.v. program annually, demonstrating a shared understanding that taking care of those who took care of us is not just an act of basic decency. it is also in our national interest. american credibility matters. abandoning these allies would tarnish our reputation. it would endanger those who are today -- we are asking to serve along u.s. forces and diplomats.

you know, as we all know, this country owes a great debt to the afghans who provided essential assistance to the u.s. mission in afghanistan. thousands of brave men and women put themselves and their families at risk to help our soldiers and diplomats accomplish their mission and return home safely. and we must not turn our back on these individuals. we must not imperil our ability to secure this kind of assistance in the future and a no vote today would do exactly that. so i urge this body to move forward to allow a vote on a compromise that has been supported by everybody who was raising concerns about this program. and now i would like to yield to my colleague from south carolina.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. a senator: mr. president, thank you very much. i appreciate the opportunity to be here on the senate floor today with my colleagues. mr. moran: i, too, have an amendment to strike, section 1023 of this bill, national defense authorization bill 2943. this is amendment number 4068. and this amendment we will seek unanimous consent for it to be considered, but what if does is strike section 1023 which provides for the design and planning related to construction of a facility in the united states to house detainees. this is part of the constant effort by some to close guantanamo bay and bring the detainees to the united states. and in my view it is essential for the united states to maintain the ability to hold terrorists, both those that were

captured back in 2002 as well as those that we may find on the battlefields of terrorism with isis today. but since 2008, there have been no -- the effort has been to close guantanamo bay with the effort of bringing those detainees to the united states. this congress, this senate has spoken time and time again both in the predecessors legislation to this bill we're considering today, ndaa of past years as well as the appropriations process in which we prohibit those detainees from being brought to the united states and housed in a facility here in the u.s. and in fact the attorney general, the secretary of defense have on numerous occasions confirmed that the president has no legal authority to close gitmo or to transfer detainees to the united states. but for some reason the national defense authorization bill as it came out of the committee

provides for the planning and construction, planning and designing related to construction of a facility here. so this amendment strikes that language and it reaffirms what we have said before, and in fact in last year's national defense authorization bill, we said there had to be a plan provided by the administration that outlines in significant criteria and detail what would be involved in bringing those detainees to the united states. i'm opposed to that in the first place. i'm opposed to that in the second place, but i would add that that plan that we keep looking for as yet in any specificity been granted to us to see in congress. so, mr. president, i would ask my colleagues to allow at the appropriate time that this bill be made in order for consideration for a vote by the senate as an amendment to this bill. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. mccain: there are a number of members on both sides of the aisle that have had the honor of serving in iraq and afghanistan and particularly some of the newer members have added enormously to the armed services committee. there's also one member of the committee who i believe in his many years of active duty has served in afghanistan as many as 33 times. he has had upclose and personal relationship with these brave interpreters literally put -- who literally put their lives on the line in assisting people like colonel graham and all others as they were able to accomplish their mission which they would not have been able to do if it had not been for the outstanding service and sacrifice of these interpreters. senator graham? mr. graham: thank you. i want to compliment senator

shaheen and all those involved trying to get the yes. the people who had concerns about your amendment, i understand their concerns. you're able to find a way to accommodate those concerns. this is sort of how the legislative process works. get the yes when you can but just why this is important to america and particularly to me. senator sullivan served some time in afghanistan as a marine working in the embassy dealing with detainee operations. i did about 140 days on the ground in iraq and afghanistan, mostly in afghanistan as a reservist. i did my reserve duty week, two weeks at a time with task force 435 that was in charge of detainee operations at bagram prison. that unit's job was to advise the commanders about who to put in bagram, what requirements

there were to hold somebody in bagram prison under u.s. custody, and also to build up the rule of law. we'd go out to different parts of afghanistan and work with the police and the judiciary to try to build capacity. during my experience in afghanistan, i learned something that was just quite frankly overwhelming to this day, how brave some people in afghanistan are to change their country. there was one interpreter, and i'm certainly not going to use his name, that was there the entire time that i did my reserve duty. i retired last year. this man was invaluable. it's not just enter continuing the -- interpreting the language and repeating what he said. it's the contacts he made over time to make sure the coalition forces could accomplish their mission. of all the people that we owe a debt to as americans are these

interpreters and those who have assisted our forces. they have come out of the shadows. they've taken a skillset that we did not have which quite frankly is local knowledge. they've applied that skillset to help our efforts in protecting america but equally important to protect their homeland afghanistan. all the letters can say it better than i can from those who are in command. i just had a small glimpse as a military lawyer over about a five-year period coming in and coming out, and all i can tell you is what i saw just was amazing and it moved me beyond measure. i got to meet their family. the interpreters had families. i got to know them. they have children. they have wives. all the ones i know were male but i know there were females who were helping, too. and i can just tell you if

there's any way for this body to pass senator shaheen's amendment, you would be doing our country and those who helped us under the most dire situation a great service. as to how the body works, i wish i could get everything i wanted. i have not been able to do that in life or in the senate. i wanted to have a vote on the ex-im bank because the ex-im bank is not operating because we don't have a quorum. i asked for an amendment on this bill to change that, to get us back in the game in terms of the ex-im bank because it shut down. it was objected to because it's not germane. i understand that. i'm disappointed but i'm not going to stop the whole bill because i didn't get what i want. there are other people that are offering amendments that are very important to them. ex-im bank is very important to people of south carolina, but there's a process here. the ex-im bank is about jobs that are important to americans.

this is about lives. this is about the here and now. this is not about what might happen one day. maybe if something happened, maybe we'll do this or maybe we'll do that. this is about people who have already stepped out. this is the here and now. there's nothing hypothetical about this debate. there are thousands of people in afghanistan who have risked their lives to help us, and we're trying to get some of them out of afghanistan to the safety of the united states honoring their service to make sure that other people in the future would also want to do the same. the one thing i tell my colleagues, the war is not over. 2012, 2011, the last time we had some of these debates, has it gotten better? the world is on fire right now. the threats to our country are at an all-time high in my opinion. and 2012 isil didn't even exist.

today they're trying to penetrate the homeland. the homeland security secretary said that what keeps him up at night is homegrown terrorism. the enemy is actively involved in trying to get people on their side who live among us. so all i can say is the things that have changed over the last few years are all for the worse, not the better. and and that this amendment is literally life and death, and i honest-to-god beg and plead with the members of this committee, if you cannot -- of this body, if you cannot get everything you want, please don't stop this. i did not get everything i want. this really matters. mr. mccain: will the senator yield for a 00 question? greenhouse gamr. graham: yes. mr. mccain: so, snees this unanimous consent is -- so, suppose that this unanimous consent is disagreed with and objected bay member. would you say that the blood of

these young interpreters that are going to be killed and their families murdered, the blood of those people is on their hands? would you say that just because they didn't get their amendment -- and, by the way, i offered senator lee the chance to bring up his amendment on the issue of women in the selective service and he turned that down. he said he wanted to tank his other amendment -- take up his other amendment first. so let the record be clear. i approached him immediately. said, when do you want to tank the amendment on selective service. he said, that's not my priority. my priority is here, which parntsly he's going to object. so we don't do this, we keep those people in afghanistan, they're killed by the taliban -- and you would agree, they're the number-one target -- and they're killed. wouldn't you say that someone objected to them having freedom from the united states of america and they are killed, the blood would be on their hands? mr. graham: well, the first

thing i'd say, i'd blame the taliban. they're the ones who are doing the killing. what i would say to senators is that where you can help people that make your country savings you should -- that make your country safer, you should. that all of us should try to find way to get to "yes," sometimes, if you can't do it all the time. and i can just tell the members of this body, i have been there 37 times between iraq and afghanistan, probably 20 in afghanistan. i've spent close to 100 days on the ground in afghanistan. i've seen what they do in person. they get outside the wire. they make the mission possible. they risk their lives. and senator shaheen has been able to navigate a very thorny issue and get a solution that's not 100% of what she wanted. she had to give up thousands of visas just to find a way to move forward. i'm not blaming -- you know, all i can say is that this really is

a big deal. people's lives are at stake. this is not a hypothetical. all i can say is i just hope we can find it among ourselves to get to "yes" on this and what senator moran is trying to do. if we can't, we can't. but let let me tell you this: senator lee objected to my ex-im bank amendment in committee. he had every ride to do so. it wasn't germane. we are losing hundreds of jobs in south carolina because the bank shut dowfnlt i am going to still fight to get the ex-im bank operating. but what i am not going to do to help the people of south carolina is to put the lives of those who are in afghanistan at risk. i don't think i'm helping the people in south carolina by making it harder for us to fight and win a war we can't afford to lose. i can't live with myself knowing what is coming their way. and this is not a matter of

"what if" to me. i have been there. ist seen it. and people are literally going to die. so my amendment is important to me. it is important to the economy of south carolina, i think of the nation. i did not get my way, but i am not going to stand in the way of people being able to avoid being killed. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: will me colleague from south carolina yield for a question? mr. graham: i would be glad to. mrs. shaheen: you talked about the fight against isil and how that's spreading across the middle east. what kind of a message does it send to the taliban, to isil, to other terrorist groups when they hear that -- should they hear that we're defeating this

program that was designed to help those people who helped us? mr. graham: that's great question. they're called night letters. let me tell you how this works. i was in ca kangahar trying to build up capacity of a particular area of kandahar. the judges were being killed in large measure. it was pretty hard to find anybody that wanted to be a gunnel. so we hardened a site. we put some american troops along with afghan soldiers to try to get a judiciary up in running and we had a couple police stations that wering overrun and we were trying to get people to go back into these police stations, and the night letter was delivered to some of the leaders who were buying into what we were doing. and it was -- you know, i don't speak their language, but these night letters were from the taliban saying we're watching

you. the americans will leave you. they will leave you, and we will remember you. i know what the night letter looks like, because i saw one. but here's the difference: i never got one. can you imagine what it would be like if you woke up tomorrow and the enemy of your country trying to take your country down is telling you and your family, we're watching you. the we're coming after you, and you're hiding behind the great satan and the great satan will abandon you. i can tell you what it will dovment i--what it will did. it will make those letters real and they will take this failure to help people who helped us and make it really hard in the future for us to defend our nation. so the night letters are going to increase, and we had to sit down with these people and say, no, we're not going to abandon you. it's funny you mention that. i've got a resolution that

senator reed has agreed to urging the president, if he chooses, to keep troop levels at 9,800 based on conditions and if he felt that was the right thing, we'd all support him and lit the next president find out if we need to go down. i'm all for leaving, i just want to make the conditions right to leave. and i don't think they're right to go to 5,500 versus 9,800. senator shaheen, all i can tell you is that these night letters are going to be larger in number and people who get the letter are watching what we're doing. mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be in order to be offered: shaheen 4604, moran 4608. i further ask there be five minutes equally divided between the managers or their designees, thantdz senate then proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in the order lists, with in a second-degree amendments to these amendments in order prior to the votes. the presiding officer: is

there objection? mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. lease lease reserving the right -- mr. lee: reserving the right to object, i have sat here hearing some fairly hyperbolic arguments. if they don't allow these amendments to go through -- the fact is i have no problem with either of these amendments. i will gladly not only allow a vote, i will support for, i will vote for the amendments. i support both of them. but i would like an amendment on my vote as well. this is an issue i've been work on for five years. this is an issue that arose five years ago when a provision was slipped into the ndaa that we passed that year that i think raises some significant concerns. working with my colleague, the senior senator from california and senators on bodge sides of the aisle, i've put together a proposal to deal with that

language. we naught in. we got a vote on it in 2012. we got a vote on it then. 67 members of this body voted for it, including some of the people who have sponge in the last few minutes. so this is an issue that became a part of our law because of the ndaa five years ago. it is afroapt bring this up now. the senator from south carolina moments ago made reference to an objection that i made to an amendment of his within the senate armed services committee on which i serve. and on which he serves as well. that's true. i made an objection to that because in committee we have some juris ducksal rules. there are some reasons why certain amendments aren't juris ducksally proper within the committee. there was a reason why i didn't bring this amendment up, the amendment i want to vote on within committee, because of a jurisdictional issue. as with last year -- i was told this year and last year, if there is an amendment you want to bring up, the appropriate

time is doe that is on the floor, not in committee. so again i don't have a problem with the shaheen amendment of i don't have a problem with the moran amendment of i'll support both of them. all i'm asking for is to give me a vote on my amendment as well. therefore, i ask that the consent be modified to include my amendment, amendment number 4448. the presiding officer: does the sno from arizona so modify his request? mr. graham: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. number one, i will object and let me tell you why. the last time we had a hearing about the issue of whether or not an american citizen can be held as an enemy combatant if they collaborate with al qaeda was in 2012. since 2012, things have changed all for the worse. to my friend from utah, your

amendment should be in the judiciary committee. that's where primary jurisdiction exists. i am chairman of the crime, terrorism subcommittee. i promise that we'll have a hearing about your idea that never made it into ndaa and we will see what's changed since 2012 till now. i think that is much better than having a debate on the floor of the senate about something this important that will last 30 minutes or an hour. i would argue to the american people that the rise of isil has changed the game. that if you read their literature, they're talking about it's easier to penetrate america than it is to get somebody to come here. when you listen to the f.b.i. director and the homeland security director, their number-one peer is homegrown terrorism. so here is my view. we'll debate the substance of this later. i think the best thing we could do is to pass these two

amendments, the ex-im bank was brought up by senator schumer, senator shelby objected. he has every right to do so. senator lee came on the floor and talked about how bad an idea the bank s he has every right to do soavment the idea that you have to get your amendment for these two people to go forward is what this is all about. i i didn't get my amendment. i wish that we could have had a vote on the ex-im bank reauthorization. it really does matter to meevment i didn't get that. mr. mccain: will the senator -- graham dprawm if i could finish my -- mr. graham: if i could fish finish my thought. the prudent thing to do is for us to have another hearing because the last one we had was in 2012. listen to the f.b.i. director and home homeland security secretary and see why they feel so strongly about home grown terrorism and see if we can find a way to move forward.

but what you and others have said, there is not one american being held as anen mi combatant today. there are thousands of people who have helped us in afghanistan that are going to get killed if we don't do something about t you and i will never agree on this issue. and i respect you greatly. i believe we're fighting a war, not a crime. i will never agree that because you're an american citizen you can collaborate with the enemy and work actively with al qaeda and isil to attack your homeland and not be held under the law of war, which we've been doing for decades in other wars. i do believe in due process. the law as it is today that if our military or intelligence community picks up someone they believe is collaborating with isil or al qaeda, someone covered as an enemy combatant, they can be held but they can only be held if a federal judge allows the continued holding,

that you do get a hearing under the habeas corpus statute, that the government has to prove that you are in fact an enemy combatant. and the last time we had this debate, it was suggested this is a slippery slope. what prevents you from going to be held as an enemy combatant if you went to a tea party rally? that was pretty offensive to me then. it is offensive now. the i'd that somehow american soil is not part of the battlefield blows me away. i'll yield in a minute. where is the -- let me make this real to you. we'll have a big debate. we'll -- i'd love to have a hearing. this guy here. see this guy? anwar alawlaki. president obama put him on the kill list ants and we killed

him. good. well-done, mr. president. if you're an american citizen and you go to yemen to join al qaeda, i hope you get killed, too. and if we capture you, you'll have your day in court to argue that you're not part of the al qaeda, that we got it all wrong, and the government has to prove that you are. if the government can make that argument, the last thing i want somebody like this to hear is, hey, you have a right to remain silent. i don't want these people to remain silent. i want to hold them as enemy combatants and gather intelligence. i don't want to torture them. i don't want to beat them up. but i don't want to put them in federal court and act like it it's not part of the war. i don't want to criminalize the war. i want to make sure that you have due process consistent with being at war. what senator lee and others are suggesting is if this guy made

it to america, came back to his homeland, we shot him on the steps of the capitol and he survived, we'd have to read him his miranda rights and we couldn't hold him to find out what he knows about this attack and future attacks under military interrogation. so what you do when you go down his route, or his road is you stop the ability to gather intelligence at a time we need more information, not less. so i'm not going to belabor this point anymore. as you can tell, i strongly disapprove of having this debate now without another hearing, of going down this road because so much has changed. and i hope you respect where i'm coming from. i respect your passion. i hope you respect my passion for the ex-im bank. here's the point. i didn't get all i wanted, and i'm not going to stop the process for others who have done a good thing. now here's what you're going to

do. because you're worried about something that's not real this moment because nobody's in custody, you're objecting to finding a solution to something that is real for the moment. and senator moran, it is real what you're worried about. so i'm all asking is that before we can get to "yes," let's get to "yes." and if you can't get everything you want because somebody is passionate on the other side, don't stop everybody else from getting what they want. is that -- that to me just makes a stronger country, a better senate. and as you know, i respect you but i'm never going to agree with you. ever. because i've been a military lawyer for 33 years. what you're saying makes no sense to me. i'm sure you're sincere about it. i think it weakens the ability to defend this nation at a time we need all the defenses we can get. and i'm not suggesting you be rounded up by your government, thrown in jail, accused of being an al qaeda or isil member,

nobody hears from you again and you never get a chance to speak. that's not the law. it's never been the law. so i just plead with the senator, please, please let's take this issue in the judiciary committee where it belongs. let's have a hearing, mark up the bill in judiciary. then we'll do whatever you want to do. don't stop these two amendments. that's all i'm asking. mr. mccain: let me also mention a couple of facts. as of 10:00 this morning, there were 537 amendments that had been filed. 537 amendments, which is always the case with the defense authorization bill. and i'm sure that every member that filed those amendments wanted a vote and debate on every single one of them, as is their right. but the fact is that we can't do that for a whole variety of reasons, including objections, et cetera.

and so if every senator blocked every vote because his or her amendment is not being considered, obviously we would never do anything, which is why we have done so little here on this bill. and now we're talking about the lives of men who have put it on the line for the men and women who are serving. don't we have some sense of perspective and priority here? people are going to die, i tell the senator from utah. they're going to die if we don't pass this amendment and take them out of harm's way. don't you understand the gravity of that? can't you understand that your issue on extended detainee is an important one? but don't you understand these people's lives are in danger as we speak. they have been marked for death. they have been marked for death.

why do you think that general petraeus and general nicholson and ryan crocker and all our most respected military leaders say with great urgency, they say with urgency we've got to do this because they're going to die. they're going to be killed. doesn't that somehow appeal to your sense of compassion for these people? doesn't it mean -- doesn't it mean -- let me finish. don't you understand what's at stake here? do you respect general petraeus? do you respect general nicholson? do you respect general mcchrystal? every one of them has written to us and said these people's lives are in danger and this is a moral issue. so you're going to object because your amendment is not being -- is being blocked, as so many amendments are blocked. many, many amendments are blocked. if that's good or bad, i don't know. but people object. now we're talking about a

compelling humanitarian issue that is far more important than humanitarian because we abandon these people, and you can't expect people in future conflicts or in these conflicts we're in to cooperate and help the united states of america if we're going to abandon them to a cruel and terrible death. this is a serious issue. this is not something that we like to maneuver around, what the steering committee wants and how we're going to do all these kind of things, we get mired down in and we'll have the heritage foundation maybe write a letter or something like that. this is a matter of life and death, and that issue and challenge is immediate. so i appeal to the the senator from utah's humanity, for his compassion, for his ability to save lives here and let this thing go through as the most respected military and diplomatic leaders in the world

have urged us to do so. i appeal to the really life or death situation that will entail a lot of deaths if you block this legislation. and that -- go ahead. the presiding officer: objection is heard to the modification. is there objection to the original request? mr. lee: i object to the original request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i've been ask by a couple of my colleagues why it is that i couldn't just have the good sense to let their amendment go through. i say let's do it. let's have it right now. i support the amendment. let's vote on it right now. let's vote on senator moran's amendment right now. let's vote on mine right now. the comparison has been made by my friend from south carolina that because he didn't get his vote because someone objected this morning to his amendment

dealing with the export-import bank, that i should also have my amendment blocked. now it's important to realize the export-import was not created by a previous iteration of the national defense authorization act. the provision that i'm objecting to here, the provision that i'm trying to address with my amendment here was in fact created by a previous iteration of the national defense authorization act. it was passed in 2011 with, i believe, far too little consideration, without the american people being aware of what they were doing. and it remains on the books to this day. the next argument made by my friend from south carolina is an interesting one, which is that this needs more of an airing. it needs more of a hearing. he's promised me now a hearing on the judiciary committee which he chairs. as much as i appreciate that gesture that isn't enough. let me replay a couple of things. first of all, i've been working on this for five years.

i got a vote on it four years ago. 67 senators in fact voted for it. it was removed in a conference committee. some have said there was some confusion about why it was removed in a conference committee. but regardless, it was removed. been trying ever since then in subsequent iterations of the defense authorization act to get another vote on it. i serve on the armed services committee. i was told by the chairman, my distinguished colleague, the senior senator from arizona, last year i told him i wanted to bring it up in committee, he said you can't bring it up in committee because there is a jurisdictional issue with the judiciary committee. he said that's better dealt with on the floor. i said okay, i'll deal with it on the floor. we got to the floor. i was blocked from offering it on the floor. it didn't happen. so this year i was told you can't bring it up in committee. there's a jurisdictional issue. you're best served waiting for the floor for that. i said okay, i'll wait for the floor. i brought it up again this year. i've been told by the chairman of the armed services committee, the senior senator from arizona, we'll deal with it next year. i've been told by the senator

from south carolina that he'll deal with it at some point in the future in a hearing. not a markup, just a hearing in the subcommittee of the judiciary committee which he chairs. so we're talking about an issue that was brought about five years ago and i'm being told again and again to wait, to wait, to wait, to wait more. well, this is an issue that got the vote of 67 members of our body four years ago. this is an issue that was brought about by a previous iteration of the national defense authorization act. this is the appropriate vehicle in which to address this. now, mr. president, this is not a frivolity. this is not just some nicety. this is not just some parochial interest. this is a basic human rights interest. this is an interest that relates to some of the most fundamental protections in the united states constitution. when you say that you want to lock up american citizens detained on u.s. soil without charge, without trial, without access to a jury indefinitely,

for an unlimited period of time, you're complicated at a minimum the fourth, sixth, and the eighth amendments to the u.s. constitution. these are very significant. so as my friend from south carolina says that we just need to take a deep breath and deal with this another day, why does the status quo, the status quo which is insulting to the history, the tradition, the text, the context of the u.s. constitution, why should that be the status quo? why, mr. president, should we wait to deal with this? why, mr. president, should the status quo be one that is insulting to the american people, one that is insulting to the descendants of those japanese americans who were interned in world war ii indefinitely without charge, without access to trial, without access to the jury system, without access to their fundamental rides under the 4th, 5th and 6th and 8th

amendments to the constitution? why should that status prevail? why moreover should someone who is concerned about these fundamental human rights issues, fundamental constitution rights issues, why should someone concerned about those be maligned or accused are not caring about individuals who would be harmed about the nonpassage of another amendment? why should that person be blamed when that person -- me -- is willing to allow a vote on the shaheen amendment, on the moran amendment as long as they give me a vote on my amendment, an amendment that was allowed a vote four years ago, an amendment that received 67 votes, a veto-proof supermajority, only four years ago. so having been told again and again and again wait until next year, wait until next year, wait until the next committee process, wait until the next floor process, after awhile one begins to discern a pattern.

that's a pattern that i'm discerning. there's another pattern that i discern which is a pattern in which when you allow the government to exercise a certain power, even if it might not be being exercised at the moment, eventually it will, that's why we put precautionary language within our laws. that's why we have rights in our laws. what are rights, after all? what statements of law that restrict action by the government. as madison noted in federalist 51, government is a reflection of human nature. to understand government, you have to understand human nature. if men were angels, we'd have no need of a government. and if government could be administered by angels, we'd have no need for these external constraints on government on its ability to exercise power.

but we have learned through sad experience, mr. president, that when human beings get power, when they get excessive power sometimes they abuse that power so we have to constrain it. and it's important that we decide we're going to constrain it before the moment arrives lest we see another korematsu moment, lest we see the internment of american citizens without charge without trial on indefinite basis on accusations unproven, accusations untested by a jury. mr. president, the whole reason for having a constitution rests on this understanding, this fundamental understanding that when government power grows, when it expands, it does so at the expense of individual freedom, and it sometimes does so at great risk to the human soul, at great risk to the ability of an individual to remain free. i'm all in favor of the shaheen

amendment. i'm all in favor of the moran amendment. let's have a vote on those two amendments and on the amendment that i've proposed, an amendment that is limited, an amendment i should note here that would not foreclose the ability of this body down the road to identify the changed circumstances of the sort, some of my colleagues have referred to. it simply says that if the government is going to do this, there has to be a plain statement, a clear statement. it has to do so expressly. the congress must expressly authorize this kind of action, either in a declaration of war or an authorization for the use of military force. i don't think that's too much to ask. especially given the types of constitutional protections we're dealing with. if in fact we're going to call the american homeland, if in fact we're going to call the

territorial jurisdiction of the united states of america part of the battlefield, ought we not have a declaration of war, an authorization for the use of military force that identifies it as such? i mean, after all, the precedents that we're talking about, the precedents upon which this theory is based are premise ed on this idea that you have -- premised on this idea that you have enemy combatants that become part of an enemy's fighting force. as when you had american citizens going over to germany, putting on a german uniform, fighting for the germans. that was part of that war. they were enemy combatants on the battlefield. exparity milligan where you had confederate rebel soldiers who were enemy combatants on the battlefield fighting against the united states. if we're going to do that, we need a declaration of war.

we need an authorization for the use of military force. it states so expressly. and that is the sole purpose of my amendment, and i don't think that's unreasonable, and in fact i think that is necessary. i'd like to get this done, i'd like to get this done today. we can get this done. let's have votes on all three amendments. thank you, mr. president. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i think finally i woke up in the middle of the night last night about this issue, and it made me think of a long time ago when i saw a lot of brave americans die, some of it in aerial combat. several times i thought that perhaps i could have prevented their deaths by being a better airman or taking certain actions. and it bothers me to this day. i can't imagine how it must

bother someone who is literally signing the death warrants of some people who in their innocence decided they would help the united states of america. i don't -- i couldn't bear that burden, and i believe that what we're doing here by blocking this amendment to allow these wonderful people as described by all of our leaders to leave a place where death is almost certain, at least in the case of some of them, and because of some exercise that would have no immediate effect, that we're blocking this ability to save lives i do not understand. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. rounds: thank you, mr. president. as the -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. rounds: i would ask that the quorum call be eliminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rounds: thank you,

mr. president, as the senate continues to consider the national defense authorization act, the ndaa, i rise today to discuss an amendment in support of my constituents who are military retirees as well as military retirees in many other states. my amendment would change a provision being proposed in this bill that requires military retirees and their families who don't have easy access to a military treatment facility such as on a base from unfairly paying higher co-pays for their prescription medications. tricare provides health care services for our service members, our military retirees and their families. using tricare, military retirees can get free prescription drugs at a military treatment facility. in other words, our military retirees who live close to a base have no co-pays for their prescription drugs. however, if they draw these

prescriptions from a retail pharmacy or through the tricare-approved mail order system, they're required to make a co-payment. my amendment deals with a provision in today's bill that directs the department of defense or dodd to increase these co-payments that military retirees obtain from a retail pharmacy or through mail order rather than from a military treatment facility. the provision will require those military retirees who live far away from a base without easy access to a military treatment facility to get their prescriptions to pay more for their use of retail pharmacies and mail order. why would anybody seek to make it more expensive for our military retirees to receive a benefit they have been promised just because they live far away from a military treatment facility? the answer is simple. it's sequestration. we are making cuts to an

existing budget. this provision was inserted as a cost-saving measure, one that tries to balance and measure out the costs based upon or demanded by sequestration, but we're doing it on the backs of military retirees. it's being done to try to make some tough budget decisions. but this arbitrary cost-cutting measure is estimated to cost our military retiree families in rural areas -- and i emphasize in rural areas -- $2 billion over the next ten years. i don't think it's fair for us to make those who live in rural areas, rural areas like south dakota, to pay a higher co-pay because of where they live. we have made promises to these men and women who made incredible sacrifices to protect our country, that they would be able to have adequate health insurance coverage including access to rugs and medicines. it's not fair to make them bear

a $2 billion cost for prescription drugs simply because of where they live. my amendment would stipulate that if a military retiree lives more than 40 miles from a military treatment facility, they would not be saddled with this additional co-pay. further, my amendment would require an assessment by the department of defense of the added cost that would be borne by these military retirees and their families as a result of increased tricare prescription drug co-pays. this will enable congress to make reasonable future decisions with regard to increased tricare prescription drug co-payments and may have a disproportionate impact on those living distant from military treatment facilities. mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to discuss my amendment which would rectify a serious effect on military retirees and their families, and, mr. president, i would yield the floor.

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, like many people in this body, i was home last week in wyoming, honoring the sacrifice of america's veterans. every day we see evidence of just how much america relies on our men and our women in uniform to keep us safe, to keep us free, to fight for our freedoms, to fight for our safety. every day we get fresh reminders that the world continues to be a very dangerous place. so, mr. president, to me it's disturbing that the democrats in washington have done so much to slow down our efforts to provide

for america's troops, troops we need for our national defense. the defense authorization act that we're debating here sets important policies and priorities that have a great effect on our national security. a strong american military is absolutely essential, essential as we need to address the world's dangers that we face overseas before they become direct threats here at home. so when i consider legislation like this, i try to keep one thing in mind. if you want to make america safe and secure, that we need to provide the greatest possible security for our country while maintaining the greatest possible freedom for the american people, and also at the same time improving america's standing in the world. so when i look back over the past seven years, i have to ask the obama administration, ask of the obama administration and ask all americans and anyone

listening in today how the obama administration's foreign policies have met the goals of the greatest possible security, the greatest possible freedom and improving our standing in the world. and i just think that in far too many cases, too many parts of the world, the only honest conclusion is that the policies of the obama administration have actually failed. now, i'm not the only one that thinks so. i found it very interesting when you take a look at former president jimmy carter what he has to say when he was asked about this. he said this about president obama. he said -- "i can't think of many nations in the world where we, we the united states, have a better relationship now than we did when he, president obama, took over." he went on to say that the united states influence and prestige and respect -- and we think about this, influence, prestige and respect in the world is probably lower now than it was six or seven years ago. this is a former president of

the united states, a democrat president of the united states, jimmy carter. so let's look at some examples. it's been more than five years since the start of the uprisings in syria. in august of 2011, president obama responded by calling on bashar assad to step aside. a few months later, secretary of state hillary clinton said that it was only, as she said, quote, a matter of time before the assad regime would fail. well, that was more than four years ago. assad is still there. a matter of time, she said. the obama administration didn't back up its words and any meaningful support for the moderate opposition in syria was not there. they did nothing. the president did nothing to enforce the so-called red line that he drew on the side using chesapeake against his people -- chemical weapons against his people. assad used chemical weapons

against his people, the president of the united states did nothing. the administration's weak response in syria essentially gave a green light for assad to continue and a green light for russia to come in and pump up and protect assad. so i find it interesting, mr. president, that when you take a look at what the president of the united states has done and you go to "the washington post," this was tuesday, june 7, the headline -- "empty words, empty stomachs. syrian children, syrian children continue to face starvation as another obama administration promise falls by the wayside." that's what we see with barack obama, another obama administration promise falling by the wayside. thousands and thousands, hundreds of thousands killed. the president's red line became a green light.

so the invitation came for russia to come in, they have done that, but what else has russia done over the past seven years? remember how the obama administration launched its so-called russian reset? president obama was so intent on resetting u.s. relations with the kremlin that he showed a complete lack of resolve. he gave russia one concession after another in the new start treaty. that was in 2010. he had only become president in 2009. 2010, one concession after another. president obama showed vladimir putin that the american president barack obama could easily be pushed around. under this treaty, america is cutting our nuclear arsenal while russia is expanding theirs. it was allowed by the treaty. this is the president's best he could do.

russia responded to the reset. and we remember hillary clinton there pressing the reset button, responded to the reset of relations by sending troupes into -- troops into ukraine, by annexing crimea, russia moved. president obama shows weakness, russia moves. yes, vladimir putin is a thug and when president obama shows weakness, putin does the things that thugs do. but that's the obama administration for you. the administration's policy on russia has not provided the greatest possible security for america, not at all. well, let's look at iran. last week president obama gave a very political speech at the graduation ceremony at the u.s. air force academy in colorado springs. he criticized republicans for questioning the treaties that he negotiates.

to me it seems more like capitulates rather than negotiates. while president obama negotiated a major treaty with iran over their illicit nuclear weapons program, he said that it was this or war. he thought the treaty was so great, he wouldn't even let the senate -- didn't want the senate have a chance to review it. that was it. his way or no. back in january he said in a state of the union address that because of the nuclear deal with iran, he said the world has avoided another war. these are president obama's words. this is complete fiction. complete fiction. the choice was never between his deal and another war. it was a choice between a bad deal and a better deal and president obama chose a bad deal. and as they say in the military, if you want it bad enough, you get it bad. and that's what we got. a lesson president obama apparently never learned.

now we've learned from an interview with one of the president's top advisors that this was something the administration knew all along. this advisor ben rhodes bragged about creating an echo chamber to help deceive, intentionally designed to deceive the american people about the agreement. let's go back to before the nuclear deal. there was actually an international ban on iran testing ballistic missile technology. a ban was in place. today what's happening? well, iran is right back to doing the tests. i remember the administration promising the inspectors would get access to iran yeas nuclear facilities -- iran's nuclear facilities anywhere, any time 24/. turns out it's more like -- 24/7. turns out it's more like 24 days, not 24/7. that's the kind of notice that now is needed prior to access.

so how is it working for iran? the iranian economy is benefiting from access to $100 billion because the obama administration gave them sanctions relief. what are they going to do with the money? build roads? build hospitals? help educate the young? don't count on it because even the president's national security advisor admits some of this money is going to be used by iran to keep supporting terrorist groups. we see it. we know it. hamas, hezbollah, houthis in yemen. president obama wanted a deal so badly that he got a very bad deal, a bad deal not him, for the american people, for our country. the president and his foreign policy team were willing to say anything to sell this deal to

the american people, the administration's policy on iran has not provided the greatest possible security for america. mr. president, i could go on talking about more places around the world. members of this body are fully aware. members of the american people are fully aware of the failures of this administration. there are so many places where america does not have a better relationship now than we did when president obama came into office just like jimmyarter said. can't think of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship thousand than we did when -- now than we did when president obama took over. so president obama is going to spend the rest of his time in office trying to create an echo chamber. he'll try to convince people around the world that his foreign policies have been a success. but the economist magazine recently noted america under president obama has been a

foreign policy in their words pushover, pushover. so as the senate considers this vital national security legislation, the national defense authorization act, i think it's important that we honestly evaluate what the president's record really is and today the world is less safe, less secure and less stable than it was seven years ago. the president and all the people who have been a part of his foreign policy team over the years they will say whatever it takes to try to hide and disguise the facts. well, it's time to block out the echo chamber. it's time to ignore the spin. we need to make sure we're providing the greatest possible security for america while maintaining the greatest possible freedom for the american people and improving america's standing in the world. that's our responsibility as the legislative body. america for decades upon decades

has been the most powerful and respected nation in the face of the earth. under president obama, american power has declined and respect around the world has evaporated. president obama was given the nobel peace prize in 2009. it was completely undeserved and it deserves to be removed from him if something like this could actually be done. unfortunately, it's not possible to revoke a nobel peace prize. in this case it should be. that prize remains undeserved. american men and women in uniform deserve better than what they've gotten from their commander in chief. it's now up to congress to make sure they receive the support, the equipment and the technology they need to protect our country and our citizens. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: will the senator withhold his request? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. a senator: the federal government's number one responsibility is to protect the american people. as the obama administration approaches its final months, the american people still do not feel with any degree of confidence that washington is taking the proper steps to carry out that responsibility. mr. boozman: the islamic state terror group has repeatedly encouraged sympathizers in the west to launch domestic attacks. in the group's self-declared c califat in syria and iraq, it continues to carry out atrocities on a daily basis. isis has no intention of letting up, and the president's strategy of scattered attacks is doing little to slow the terror

groups' strength. a group president obama wants -- once dubbed the jv team has become a serious threat during his watch. that is just one of the many failures of this administration's foreign policy which is rooted in wishful thinking rather than grounded in reality. the idea that we can wish away the nation's threats that our nation faces by passively withdrawing from the international stage is a dangerous approach. it is this mentality that the president and his aides used to justify not calling jihadi attacks what they are, radical islamic terrorism. the president has convinced himself that radical islamic terrorism will not be a threat if we just call it something else. clearly this is not true. it's the same mind set that thinks closing gitmo and moving dangerous terrorists to u.s. soil is the right thing to do.

and it's how we ended up with a deal that does nothing to prevent iran from going nuclear but instead emboldens it to belligerently threaten the u.s., our allies like israel, and its neighboring arab states. the regime in take ran acts -- tehran acts as if it's virtually untouchable as a result of the oakes' agreement. iran has no intentions of being a responsible, peaceful player in the international community. even before the deal's implementation, iran shamelessly violated u.n. security council mandates now free from sanctions, the iranians are flush with resources to build an arsenal to fund terror across the region. none of this seems to matter to the white house which was bent on making this deal the cornerstone of its foreign policy. the administration was so determined to sell this deal that it engaged in a propaganda

campaign enlisting outside groups to create and i quote, an echo chamber and feeding material to a press corp. that white house staffers said, and i quote, "new nothing about diplomacy." the administration even took extreme steps to keep uncomfortable truths from the american people by removing a damaging exchange about whether officials lied about secret talks with iran back in 2012. all of this just adds to the perception that the obama administration was willing to go to any length to get this deal done no matter how bad it is for our national security. senate republicans have tried to correct this course. we wanted to stop this ill-advised iran deal, but the minority leader forced his caucus to protect the president's legacy. we have taken efforts to force the president to present a coherent plan to defeat isis

abroad and protect americans here at home. that plan is still nonexistent. we inserted language in the law to prevent the closure of gitmo. in fact the president is once again threatening to veto the bill we are currently considering in part due to the language that prevents closure of the facility. we shouldn't be moving dangerous terrorists out of gitmo. if anything, we should be moving terrorists -- more terrorists into gitmo. the state of the art facility is more than serving its purpose for detaining the worst of the worst. obtaining valuable intelligence from them and keeping the terrorists who are bent on destroying america from returning to the battlefield. a report from "the washington post" yesterday indicates that the obama administration has evidence that about a dozen

detainees released from gitmo have launched attacks on u.s. or its allies, forces in afghanistan that have resulted in american deaths. as the threat posed by isis grows, gitmo remains the only option to house these terrorists. any facility on u.s. soil is not an option. it never was with al qaeda terrorists nor can it be with isis terrorists. the president has failed to understand the gravity of these -- that these terrorists pose it our homeland. radical islamic terrorists around the globe are pledging allegiance to the group and as we've seen in paris, brussels and san bernardino, they're committed to and capable of hitting westerners at home. the president has never presented his strategy to congress for eliminating isis and our sporadic air strikes have done little to stop the group from pressing forward and

attempting to strengthen its global reach. while isis grows and the u.s. sits idly by, iran, russia, china, and north korea have ramped up their belligerent actions putting our security at risk around the world. this will only continue to increase if we continue to chase the diplomacy to the point where it puts the safety of the american people at risk to the point where any leverage the u.s. started with is gone, and to the point where we withdraw from conflicts with enemies because it's easier to allow someone else to fight the battle. we're trying to fix the problems created by the obama administration's failures so we can restore the confidence of the american people that their government is working to protect them here and abroad. passage of the bill before us this week is a good step in the

right direction. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be quashed. the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum call coat i thought we were. the presiding officer: the owe. mr. coats: i thought we were. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. coats: the quiet gave me a different interpretation but thank you, mr. president, for the time. mr. president, i'm not here to intrurpt any -- interrupt any kind of debate relative to this bill but given the fact we're at a stalemate situation and nobody is on the floor, i thought i would at least highlight a

foreign policy speech that i've been wanting to give. i planned to do it in somewhat in significant detail on monday if the hours work out, as i think they will. but let me just take this short amount of time to summarize some of what i have been thinking and i think is something my colleagues and all of us ought to be thinking about in terms of our foreign policy. it is related to our national defense and that's what we're debating here today, supporting our military. it's unfortunate we are in the situation where we're in, but nevertheless you'd luke to take -- i'd like to take a few minutes to discuss what the next president will be inheriting, whoever that president turns out to be, republican or democrat, and potentially i guess i should

say, an independent, although i don't thinkhat will happen. the next president going to be faced with a bucketful of foreign policy issues that that president is going to have to deal with. as i said, i hope to speak next week at sometime at greater length about the challenges that our president will chase, but let me sum race a few key -- summarize a few key points that deserve further discussion among my colleagues and who feelly by the presidential -- and hopefully by the presidential campaign candidates during the election campaign. it is clear to me and i believe it is clear to my senate colleagues that the president has failed to clearly define america's global rol role hand a coherent strategy to pursue that goal. and it is equally clear thew his vision of america's role has been woefully inadequate to respond to the growing crises throughout the world. someone earlier here has mentioned and i mentioned before, the world is on fire.

the director of national intelligence through james clapper's 51 years of service in the intelligence world said he's never seen anything like this in his 51 years of service, the multitude of crises that exist across the world and that we are confronted w as the world's leading nation, the nation that has provided freedom for hundreds of millions if not billions of people by taking the lead to fight terrorism to fight the evil that exists in this world, it is important that we understand america's decisions, the decisions made by america's leaders have an enormous impact on events around the world. for nearly eight years we've been trying to read the president's foreign policy tea leaves to define his purposes and memg odds after foreign policy that to me and many seem

chaotic, ad hoc and directionless. we don't know what the administration is trying to accomplish, whether we should or should not engage, at what cost it would be. these all remain mis mysteries. mi centuries to us who have an obstacles to advise and consent on foreign policy and to the american people who continue to ask us, what's going on here? what is america's role? what are we doing? what should we be doing? what is the debate? the task is made even more daunting by the crisis-ridden world that we now face. the next president will face foreign policy challenges from across the globe, but three stand out especially that i would like to just touch on this evening. that i think are especially dangerous. those three -- the middle east, europe, and russia.

let's look at the middle east. the region is disintegrating. we're now in the midst of the most profound and dangerous redefinition of the region since the end of the ottoman empire in 1917. borders, regimes, stability, alliances are all being swept away with no clear successors. in the center of all of it is isis, the most lethal, best-funded, dangerous terrorist organization in history, created and metastasized in a vacuum, largely unfortunately, by our own making. at the same time, the civil war in syria is continuing into its sixth year. the war has created nearly 300,000 dead and millions of refugees and internally displaced persons with no end in sight. iran continues its long history of destabilizing hostile

activities in the region now growing, its disruptive capacity in the wake of the mis-begotten nuclear deal. europe zealing with the largest refugee migrant flow since world war ii. this is entirely unsustainable and unmanageable, threatening european unity and individual state stability. this crisis could unravel the e.u. itself and cost trillions of euros. more than that, it is a humanitarian disaster. the supreme court commander general breedlove in the discussion i had with him not long ago has correctly sawed that the migration flow has been weaponized. he argues that the migration crisis has become a cover for flows of dangerous terrorists to europe and beyond. our russia policy is one of the biggest and most long-term failures of american leadership in our age. the administration's infamous reset of russian policy loudly

championed at the time by mrs. clinton, by the way, preceded russia's invasion and annexation of a neighbor. since the so-called reset with russia, russia has acquired a vastly greater role in the middle east, where russia had not before been present, much less dominant. it has demonstrated reliability as a modern, capable military partner in contrast with our own unreliability. these are just three of the crises. admiral -- that the next president will face. admiral clapper, speaking in a public hearing before the senate bell generals committee -- intelligence committee, said that -- hinted out the current assessment of the crises that the world faces. it was 29 pages long. eight regional crises, each one

of which -- i've named three of them -- each one of which poses a significant threat to world order and to our own people here in the united states. since that reset, russia has acquired a vast isly greater role, as i have said. the next president is going to have to face not just these three major crises but many beinmoreand i'll talk about somm next week. we need a policy from this president and from the white house that will -- is based on a clear linkage to u.s. national interest that will articulate a coherent strategy to guide policy and actions that we take, that will be an accurate assessment of consequences, both short-term and long-term, that'll be transparent with conder an realism, that will have ensured resources adequate to secure the defined policy or

task that is being laid out, and that will show strength and leadership coming from the nation that ever other free nation in the world depend on for guidance, for strength, or ally, for coalition. mr. president, the american people are yearning for a coherent foreign policy that is clear-eyed, articulate, transparent, and common sense. they want to see it and they want to understand it. and we have an obligation to let them know what it is. we're not going to get that out of this administration. that is clear. it continues to be con-- there continues to be confusion, behind-the-curve reaction to world events and lack of a solid policy to deal with it. if the next president can give the american people a coherent foreign policy that's clear-eyed, articulate, transparent, and with common

sense, we will once again begin to reassert ourselves in terms of being a nation dedicated to finding peace and solutions to major crises around the world. but if we remain guessing about purpose and direction while the world dis-unts greats around -- disintegrates around us, our sons and daughters will pay a great price. as a consequence, america will continue to be a nation in retreat and the free world will be confused and looking for a leader. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and notice my colleague is on the floor to speak. and i would yield back. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i come here as i do every year in the senate to commemorate the anniversary of a grave blow that rhode island struck for liberty and justice -- the gads by affair of 17726789 on the night

of gunge 9 and into the morning of june 10, 1772, in the waters of rhode island, a band of american patriots pushed back against their british over-lords and drew the first blood of the struggle that would become the american revolution. american schoolchildren, the pages here in this room, and all of us no doubt learned in their history books of the boston revelers who painted their faces and pushed tea into boston harbor, but those same history books often omit the tail of the gatsby. king george iii stationed armed customs patrol vessels along the american coastline to prevent smuggling and force the payment of taxes and impose the authority of the crown. one of the most notorious of these ships was the h.m.s.

gattsby. the gaspee and his lieutenant were known for destroying fishing vessels, unjustly seizing cargo and flagging down ships that had properl -- the bh armed forces had come to regard almost every local merchant has a smuggler and cheat, wrote athur nick bunker about that era. rhode islanders chafed at this egregious disruption of their liberty at sea for -- and i quote deny -- "out of all colonies, rhode island was the one where the ocean entered most deeply into the lives of the people. somebody was bound to give. the spark was lit on june 9, 1772, when the gaspee attempted to stop the hana, a rhode island sliewp that ran through long island sound. bounded that afternoon for providence from newport. when the gaspee sort to hail and

board the hasn't narcs the hana's captain benjamin lindsey ignored lieutenant dudington's commands. as the gaspeey agave chase, the lieutenant veered north toward the shallows off nam quid point known today as gaspee point. knowing that the tide was low and falling, a and that the hana drew less water than the gaspee, the hana shot over the shallows over the point but the larger gaspee ran dead into a sandbar and stuck fast in a falling tide. captain lindsey wasted no time in reporting the gaspee's predicament who rallied at the sound of a drum to savern's tavern in prof defnlts they resolved to end the gaspee's menace in rhode island waters. that night the men shoved off from fenner's whatever paddling eight long boats down

narragansett bay toward the stranded gaspee. as told by commander benjamin armstrong, they were led by captain lindsey and abraham whip well, a merchant captain had had served in the french and indian war and would go on to command a continental navy squadron. armstrong describes the excursion as, "an increasingly rowdy group of rhode islanders who are ready to strike out at the apressive work. -- oppressive work of the royal navy." the boat silently surrounded the gaspee, then shouted for lieutenant dudington to surrender the shivment surprised and enraged, he refused. armstrong recounts the fierce, brief fight that ensued. duding stn shouted down the hatch calling for his crew on deck and then ran to the bow where the first of the raiding boats were coming along ship.

he pushed the first attempted boarder back into the bolt. a musket shot rang out. the ball for through the lieutenant's left arm. he fell back on the deck ago the raiders swarmed over the sides of the ship, swinging ax handles, the raiders beat the british seamen back down the hatchway and kept them bea low decks. dudingston collapsed in his own blood at the companionway to his cabin at the stern of the ship. the struggle was over. one of the rhode islanders, a physician, tended to duding stn's wounds. the patriot's commandeered the gaspee, loaded the crew onto the long boats, took them ashore, set combustables along the length of the gaspee and they set her ablaze and watched from a hillside on shore as the ship burned. when the fire reached the ship's magazine, this is what ensued.

the gaspee was no more. you can be sure, mr. president, that the british authorities immediately called for the heads of the american saboteurs, an inquiry was launched and a reward posted. but even though virtually all of rhode island knew about the attack, investigators were able to find no witnesses willing to name names. the entire colony seemed afflicted with a terrible case of amnesia. william staples documentary history of the destruction of the gaspee describes this distinct cloud kwraoepness of rhode island memories. james sabin said i could give no information relative to the assembling, arming, training or leading on the people in destroying the schooner gaspee. steven goiner said i know nothing about it. john cole said he saw several people collected together but