John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for years, our enemies have been setting the norms of behavior in cyber space while the White House sat idly by hoping the problem will fix itself. With the elevation of Cyber Command, we are able to ensure we set ourselves on the right course for this new form of warfare. And we will do it without creating a hollow force. Just as it would be unacceptable to send a soldier to battle without a rifle, it is unacceptable to deprive our cyber forces the basic tools they need to execute their missions. We must remain committed to ensuring Cyber Command has the authority, the funding, and the tools it needs to succeed. I look forward to the continued work on this issue with my colleague from Montana and to working in conference to ensure this elevation. I understand my colleague from Montana has ensured the Defense appropriations legislation complements our efforts in cyber command. Can you elaborate on your efforts?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, does that complete the work on the amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I just want to say to the Senator from Florida that I thank him for his intermediary work and his effort to reach this compromise. He brings unique credentials to this issue, given his experience up in space. Although some have argued that he has never returned, I don't agree with that assessment. But seriously, I thank the Senator from Florida for his intermediary work, without whom this compromise would not have been achieved. I know the Senator from Florida shares my commitment to freeing this Nation from dependency on the use of Russian rocket engines which then provide an economic boost--in some cases billions of dollars--to Vladimir Putin and his cronies. So I just want to make a special note of appreciation to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the vote is scheduled for 11 o'clock this morning, and we will be voting on the Defense authorization bill. Unfortunately, we have a situation on the objections of a Senator or Senators that their amendment is not allowed because of the objections of another Senator. In other words, we now have a situation where there are Senators in the Senate for whom it is either their way or the highway, and if they are not having an amendment that is agreed to, then they will object to other Senators' amendments no matter whether those amendments have any validity or any support. There are a number of them, but there is one that particularly bothers me, which will probably cost the lives of some brave men-- mostly men but maybe some women--who assisted us as interpreters in Afghanistan. They are on the list. The Senator from South Carolina pointed out the night letters that go to the interpreters that they are going to be killed--they and their families--for cooperating with our military and our civilians who are over there, whose work does save lives. The Senator from South Carolina has been there many, many, many times and has worked with these interpreters. So I will let him speak on this issue. But really, by not allowing this amendment--where the vote would probably be 99 to 1 because we reached an agreement with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and also with Senator Sessions--we are unable. We are unable to provide for the ability of these interpreters to come to the United States because of an unrelated amendment. I say to my colleagues, that is not the way the Senate should operate. Each amendment should be judged on its own merits or demerits and debated and voted on. So this practice--and we are about to see it on a managers' package now from the other side because their amendment is being objected to--is that we don't move forward with legislation that literally is going to cause the loss of innocent people's lives, whose only crime is that they cooperated and assisted the United States of America and our military in carrying out their duties in Afghanistan. That to me--that to me--is a shameful chapter. It is a shameful comment on the United States of America and honoring our commitments to the brave people who helped us and literally saved American lives. I ask my colleague from South Carolina, who actually has dealt with these people on many, many occasions, what his view is on this particular issue.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, if we can get consent, and individual Senators will relinquish their objections, the Senate is ready to vote on the Shaheen amendment on special immigrant visas for Afghan interpreters, which will save lives, the Moran amendment on Guantanamo, the Gillibrand amendment on the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Murray amendment on cryopreservation of eggs and sperm, the Corker amendment to authorize the activities of the State Department. We are ready to debate and vote on all of those. So I hope that if there is objection, the Senators involved will relinquish their objections so we can move forward with those amendments and have final passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, with the greatest reluctance, I object on behalf of one Member on this side. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, could I also say, as I object--reserving the right to object--the Gillibrand amendment, I do not support, but the Gillibrand amendment deserves debate and a vote in this body. It is a serious issue of the utmost seriousness in the military. The Chair certainly understands that. It has to do with sexual assaults in the military, and it deserves the attention of the entire U.S. Senate-- debate and vote. Unfortunately, there is objection.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, we have cleared the following amendments to go by voice vote on this side. I understand there are objections on the other side to this list. I want the record to reflect what is on the table from this side. I dislike getting into this back-and-forth because it really serves no purpose, but I ask unanimous consent that the managers' package as portrayed here be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, with reluctance--and I apologize to the Senator from Washington. This is another amendment that deserves debate and a vote. Another amendment that has not been brought up that deserves debate and a vote is the issue of women being registered for Selective Service. I want to make it very clear that I have wanted and this body wanted a vote on whether women should be registered for Selective Service, and it was not allowed--not by this individual but only one. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Indiana be recognized, in addition to my time, for 3 minutes----

Mr. McCAIN. And that the 3 minutes be taken out of Senator Reed's time, to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the Nelson amendment No. 4670 with the changes at the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to use 1 minute of debate time from the Democratic side.

Mr. McCAIN. I would like to say that my friend from Indiana, who has been a Member of this body for many years and has served in a variety of functions for this Nation, is exactly right. We are now in a situation where, because someone doesn't get a vote on their amendment, everybody else's amendment is not agreed to. That is not the way the Senate was intended to function. That is not the way the Senate should function. We just heard of two amendments that I strongly object to--both of them--but I want debate and votes on them. Unfortunately, we now have a situation, frankly, on both sides where unless people get their amendment, nobody gets their amendment. We are now, among other things, putting the lives of the interpreters who have served this Nation and saved American lives in danger by refusing to take up the Shaheen amendment, which allows some of these people to come to the United States of America. When some of them start dying, my friends--and they will, because they get the night letters that they are going to be assassinated, they and their families--I hope they understand what is at stake here, and I certainly wouldn't want that on my conscience. In addition to my friend Lindsey Graham's comments about Paris--and we will have plenty of time to talk about it--my favorite quote of all that epitomizes the failure of this President is from January 2014: ``The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think it is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant.'' My friends, that statement will live in infamy. That will go down with ``peace in our time.'' ``If a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant.'' ISIS is the same as a JV team putting on a Lakers uniform. There has been nothing that I know of more revealing of the attitude and policies of this administration, which is directly responsible, in my view, for the ultimate conclusion of what happened in Orlando. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Kansas, we had an agreement to have this taken by voice vote, just as we had an agreement to take up the Shaheen amendment as well, with overwhelming support in the Senate to save the lives of these interpreters. Unfortunately, one or two individual Senators blocked any progress on that. I want to assure the Senator from Kansas that we will do what is necessary to ensure that this amendment is enacted into law.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the 85 members who voted for the bill, and I would like to criticize the 13 who voted against it. I think this is a good bill. I want to thank Senator Reed for his cooperation and the effort that has been made in our committee on a bipartisan basis. If it were not for his cooperation and assistance and partnership--equal partnership--we would not have been able to have a bill of these significant numbers. I want to thank the Members for their votes. But I would also like to point out that, as happy as I am about the size of the vote, we left out some very important amendments. Particularly, we left out one that has to do with interpreters who are being slaughtered as we speak because they are the No. 1 targets for the Taliban and for ISIS. As I take pleasure in the size of the vote, I would also urge my colleagues that when we take up a bill of this significance, not every Senator can have his or her way. Not every Senator can have their amendment, particularly when it is not agreed to on the other side. So I have to say, I blame a few Senators who believe it is their way or the highway. I hope that when we move forward with other legislation, we can have amendments, debate, and vote. That is what the Senate is supposed to be about. Finally, I again thank Senator Reed and his staff for all of their cooperation and assistance. We intend to go to conference and get a bill to the President's desk. I would point out to my colleagues that this legislation is probably the biggest reform enacted by the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate since Goldwater-Nichols some 30 years ago. There are fundamental reforms in the military and how they do business, and that is very badly needed. We had a hearing a couple of weeks ago about an F-35. The first time the F-35 began production was 15 years ago. I change one of these every 18 months. Our acquisition system is broken; it needs to be fixed. There are billions and billions of dollars of cost overruns that we need to fix if we are going to have the confidence of the American people in their tax dollars being spent wisely. Again, I thank my friend and colleague from Rhode Island. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Rhode Island and look forward to the conference and, for the 54th straight year, completing a bill where the Congress of the United States sends to the President and the President signs into law the National Defense Authorization Act. I don't know of a greater responsibility that we have, and, despite our differences and issues, I think that was why the vote was as overwhelming as it was today. Unfortunately, the two Senators from Idaho were uninformed on the importance of this issue. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I reluctantly have to object, and that is because there is an objection on this side, which I have to honor. I thank Senator Murray for her advocacy for the people who are serving in our military in uniform, and this is at least an important aspect of military life, and I thank the Senator for that. I also thank Senator Gillibrand, who will speak in a moment on an issue that has been of great importance to her for several years now. She has been an advocate of this very compelling issue of sexual assault in the military. Unfortunately, we have an objection to all the amendments, and that, in my view, is a great disservice to this body, to the men and women serving in the military, and to the American public. It shouldn't matter whether I happen to agree or disagree with Senator Gillibrand or Senator Murray; they deserve debate and votes, and they are not getting them because of these objections. I wish to also point out that we are working on amendments by Senator Moran, Senator Corker, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Shaheen. I might point out gratuitously that one of the things I have seen in recent years is involvement on issues that bring new perspectives from people like Senator Gillibrand, Senator Murray, Senator Ayotte, Senator McCaskill, Senator Fischer, and Senator Ernst. They have brought perspectives to our committee and to this body that have been very helpful. All I can say is this: Senator Murray, I will continue to fight to get a vote on your amendment. Mr. President, I reluctantly object.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again, it is the same comment I made to Senator Murray. It is with profound reluctance because it is not the way we are supposed to conduct business here in the U.S. Senate. I have reached such a level of frustration that I would even consider changing the rules of the Senate that one individual out of 100 can't bring everything to a screeching halt, and that is what is taking place here over an issue. One of the amendments that is being held up is literally putting the lives of our interpreters in Afghanistan at risk. That is the view of General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, General Nicholson, and others. If we don't allow these people to come to this country, they are going to die. It is that serious. Senator Gillibrand's and Senator Murray's amendments are important, and I do not in any way diminish them, but we are talking about human lives of people who assisted us in carrying out our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is what is at stake here. I reluctantly object, and I want to assure Senator Gillibrand that I will do everything in my power--which is not a lot right now when you look at the rules of the Senate--to get a vote. I may have some differences with Senator Gillibrand, but no one has been more dedicated to addressing this issue of a very difficult and frankly embarrassing side of the military today, and that is the incidence of sexual assaults. I reluctantly object.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, as we move forward with cloture, I wish to make a clarification for the record. There has been a lot of conversation about this issue of the role of women as far as Selective Service is concerned. At the time the amendments were filed, there was no amendment, except one, from the Senator from Utah, who is on the floor. As soon as we began consideration of the bill, I said to the Senator from Utah: When do you want to do your amendment on women in the Selective Service? His response was that he wanted to do another amendment first. I said: Look, the way things work, you may have great difficulty getting that up. Nor has the Senator from Utah or anyone else raised the amendment for a vote. So I am sorry to say that out there, there seems to be some conversation that Senator McCain was blocking a vote on women in the Selective Service. I am not. Right now, if it were germane--and I don't know if it is germane or not--I have repeatedly said that if that amendment is up for consideration, I would be glad to have that amendment considered and to have it voted on. So I want to clarify that for the record. I did not block any amendment concerning women being eligible for Selective Service. I want the record to be very clear. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, for the benefit of my colleagues, until we finish this bill, I don't want anybody doing anything but finishing this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, you have a choice here. You can believe the Senator from Colorado where there is substantial presence of ULA-- an outfit that makes a lot of money--or you can believe Leon Panetta, former Secretary of Defense, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Gen. Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA, former Director of the National Security Agency; Michael Morrell, former Deputy Director and Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Michael Rogers, former chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence; ADM James Stavridis, and there are many more. All of them are saying they support what I am trying to do. It is interesting that the Senator from Colorado would completely ignore the view and position of the most respected people in America. I respect the Senator from Colorado. I do not compare his credentials to that of the former Secretary of Defense. By the way, Americans for Tax Reform is in opposition to the proposal to lift the ban on the rocket engines. They point out America has spent over $6 billion--$1 billion that they have spent on this. Also, there was an interesting incident that happened maybe a couple of months ago where an individual who is an executive from this outfit called ULA made a speech that had a lot of interesting comments in it. He obviously didn't know that it was being recorded. The interesting thing is that this man, Brett Tobey, vice president of engineering for ULA, said during a lecture at the University of Colorado in Boulder, CO, last week that the Department of Defense had ``bent over backwards to lean the field to ULA's advantage in a competition with new market entrant SpaceX.'' An executive of ULA alleges that the Defense Department bent over backwards to lean the field in favor of ULA. If that isn't a graphic example of what is going on here, then I don't know what is. He also said that because of the SpaceX competition, they were going to have to make cuts in their workforce and change the way they do business. For all of these years they have not had any competition, but the Defense Department has bent over backwards to lean the field to ULA's advantage in a competition with the new market entrant Space Exploration Technologies. I wish to remind the Chair that about 10 years ago there was an idea for Boeing to build a new tanker. It smelled very bad. I, my staff, and others pursued it, and it ended up with executives from Boeing going to jail. Unfortunately, this is another one of those examples that contributes to the profound cynicism of the American people about how their money is spent. My colleagues have a choice. They can believe the Senator from Colorado, and I am sure that the Senator from Illinois will come to the floor because that is where Boeing is headquartered. They will talk about all of these things, and then you can compare that with Leon Panetta--probably one of the most respected men in America and one of the great Secretaries of Defense--General Hayden, Michael Morell, Michael Rogers, James Stavridis, and all of these people who have no dog in this fight. They don't have anything based in their State that would affect their State's economy. They have a wealth of experience. I would imagine there is at least a century worth of experience in defense amongst these individuals. In no way do I disparage the experience of the Senator from Colorado, but I will match these guys against his any day of the week. They have no dog in this fight nor do they have a corporation based in their State. After all of these years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I know when something smells bad, just as I did with the Boeing tanker, and people ended up in jail. This stinks to high heaven. I yield the floor.