John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I have not had that experience.

Mr. McCAIN. All I can say to my friend is, if we can get a commitment that parliamentary procedures will not be used to block consideration of an amendment concerning importation of prescription drugs, I will withdraw this amendment from this bill.

Mr. McCAIN. Very briefly, I say to Senator Dorgan, I appreciate his efforts, his leadership. I appreciate everything he has done. We have had the privilege of working together on many issues over the years. I wish to be sure that when the health reform bill comes up, there will not be parliamentary obstacles from that happening. I have seen the will of the majority thwarted on the floor of the Senate by certain parliamentary maneuvers--filling up the tree, for example. The Senator from North Dakota is as familiar as I am with some parliamentary procedures which can be employed by the majority and have been employed when both parties have been in the majority to thwart the ability of Senators to have their issues considered. That is what I want to see, is to make sure that when the health reform bill is before us, we will take it up. But the sentence reads: If this issue is not addressed during the full Senate's consideration of comprehensive reform . . . My question is, why wouldn't it? Why is that sentence necessary? All I can say is that I hope we can get that assurance. If we do, I will withdraw the amendment and allow this appropriations bill to receive full consideration and be passed by the Senate.

Mr. McCAIN. We have probably tortured it to death. Considering the fact that reconciliation continues to be held out there as an option by the majority is also a factor about which I have been concerned. All we need is a clarification to make sure there will be no parliamentary obstacles to consideration of the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota, an effort joined by me and Senator Snowe and others, to allow prescription drugs to be imported into the United States. I yield the floor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have received assurances that there will be no blocks or impediments to consideration of the prescription drug importation issue, which I and a number of us have been seeking a vote on for a number of years. I have been given assurances that there will be no impediments to bringing that issue up when health reform is before the Senate. Therefore, I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is a pretty simple amendment. It prohibits the spending of $165 million on earmarks. We would free up $165 million and return it to the general pool of operation and maintenance funding. So it is very clear the administration, on the operation and maintenance account, says the bill cuts the O&M account, and this restores some of it. I again would like to point out that operation and maintenance is one of the most critical aspects of our defense of this Nation. This amendment simply prohibits expenditures on any earmarks in the operation and maintenance account.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, President Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex. Well, we don't have to worry about the military anymore; it is now just the industrial complex and the lobbyists. This amendment strikes the $2.5 billion for 10 C-17 aircraft. Again, it used to be the military-industrial complex; now it is the industrial complex. The President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Air Force, the commander of U.S. Transportation Command, and the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees have all agreed with the Secretary of Defense, who says that the ``205 C-17s in the force and on order, together with the existing fleet of C-5 aircraft, are sufficient to meet the Department's future airlift needs--even under the most stressing situations.'' Mr. President, the spending goes on, the beat goes on, and at some time the American people are going to say ``enough.''

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the side-by-side here is to basically neuter the intent of my amendment, which calls for competition for earmarks that are intended for for-profit companies. That is all it is, pure and simple. It is very well known how jealously the appropriators guard their earmarking, pork-barreling projects. My amendment, which is a side-by-side, would say we just put earmarks up for competition. The amendment of Senator Inouye will gut that provision.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask for a voice vote on this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this would strike an unrequested $9.5 million earmark for a hypersonic wind tunnel research project called MARIAH. It is up to now some $90 million has been spent; nothing to show for it. It is an Army program and here is what the Army says: There are no current operational requirements for a hypersonic missile program within the Army. No Army missions currently require flight technologies. The Army does not have the need for a hypersonic wind tunnel. It is hard to be more clear than that. So let's have the pork barrelers vote for it again.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the 2010 Defense appropriations bill and the three amendments that will be called up tomorrow on C-17s, for-profit earmark competition, and a particularly egregious earmark on hypersonic wind tunnel development. Tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of the 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. This must-pass bill provides $626 billion for the day-to-day operations of our military, including the critical resources that support our commanders as they lead operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bill also contains billions of dollars in wasteful spending, including $2.7 billion in Member-requested earmarks and billions of dollars in unrequested weapons systems, which is where you will find $2.5 billion for the C-17 cargo aircraft. In order to stuff these programs into the bill that the Pentagon did not request and does not want, and to enable Members to continue in their porkbarreling ways, the appropriators cut over $3 billion in the military service operation and maintenance account. This account is the lifeblood of our military forces. The account provides the military with funds to carry out day-to-day activities, such as the recruitment and fielding of a trained and ready force, all military training, exercises, food, weapons, spare parts, equipment repair, ship overhauls, transportation services, civilian personnel management and pay, and childcare and family centers. At a time when stress on our force and their families is significant, we are cutting funds from this account to put into this bill unwanted C-17s and Members' pork projects. There were plenty of lobbyists around for the C-17s last week. They were here in abundance. There are others who are seeking these porkbarrel projects. Unfortunately, there are no lobbyists for the men and women serving in the military. There are no lobbyists to provide them with the much- needed funds in order to conduct the training and the operation and the maintenance and the repair of the equipment and their pay and all of the things that are so vital to maintaining our great military of today. There are no lobbyists for them. So let's cut $3 billion out of their training, out of their exercises, out of their weapons and spare parts and equipment repairs, ship overhauls, civilian personnel management and pay, childcare and family centers. Cut all of that out and put in $2.5 billion for a C-17 that the military neither needs nor wants. Just last month, the President spoke in Phoenix, AZ, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. In that speech, the President's words were quite compelling about waste and porkbarrel spending in Defense bills. In that speech the President promised an end ``to special interests and their exotic projects'' and reaffirmed that he was leading the charge to kill off programs such as the F-22, the second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, and the outrageously expensive Presidential helicopter. The President went on to say: If a project does not support our troops, we will not fund it. If a system does not perform well, we will terminate it. And if Congress sends me a bill loaded with that kind of waste, I will veto it. Well, we will now see if the President is willing to follow through on that bold declaration. On April 6, 2009, Secretary Gates personally issued his highly touted statement on the 2010 defense budget. In that statement, he recommended, among other things, ending production of the F-22, terminating the Presidential helicopter, and completing production of the C-17 cargo aircraft. Secretary Gates said with the 205 C-17s already in the force and currently on order, the Department's analysis was that the military had enough C-17s. While we may have won a small victory against the defense industrial complex in July, when the Senate voted 58 to 40 to kill the F-22, it appears the administration has thrown in the towel on reining in spending on the C-17. In May, the House appropriators added eight C-17s into the 2009 supplemental appropriations bill at a cost of $2.2 billion. The Pentagon did not even blink. In July, the House appropriators again added three more C-17s to the 2010 Defense appropriations bill, and with the White House apparently having given up on any kind of fight with Congress on the C-17, and believing they had a green light, the Senate appropriators upped the number of C-17s to 10 aircraft, $2.5 billion. Beneath the President's Phoenix rhetoric and with $2.5 billion in unrequested C-17s, $2.7 billion in member earmarks and a significant cut in operation and maintenance funding, one would have expected the President and Secretary Gates to be outraged. However, we have heard barely a word of opposition from them. Although the Statement of Administration Policy raised opposition to the additional C-17s and the cuts to operation and maintenance funding, it appears the President is not getting out his veto pen to take a stand behind his own strong rhetoric on earmarks and government waste. I know these words will fall on deaf ears, but it is certainly not responsible for Congress to continue to load up appropriations bills-- and, yes, authorization bills--with wasteful and unnecessary spending. Americans all over the country are hurting. People are losing jobs, their savings and their homes. Yet we continue the disgraceful earmarking process, elevating parochialism and patronage politics over the true needs and welfare of our men and women in uniform and the taxpayers. If Senators think that all sounds too familiar, they are right; it is business as usual. When push comes to shove, nobody seems to really mind. The appropriators know what they need to do to keep the President from threatening to veto a defense spending bill. They know that $2.5 billion in unrequested C-17s, $2.7 billion in Member-requested earmarks, and cuts of over $3 billion to the lifeblood account of our military services won't cause the President to pause a moment before signing such a bill into law. The idea of vetoing a defense appropriations bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is unimaginable, and that is exactly the protection sought by Members when they subscribe to unrequested, costly weapons systems and earmarks. Servicemembers who defend our Nation around the globe are making great sacrifices. Their families back home are making sacrifices. Because we ask these heroes to forfeit so much, we in Congress should also be ready to make sacrifices. Sometimes that means doing what is best for the Nation instead of doing what is best for one's campaign. Our Nation's security and the welfare of our servicemembers are higher priorities than the favor of special interests or the opportunity to tout the bacon we are bringing home. Despite what I think is going to happen, I believe that if the President wants to send a message that we are serious about cutting out wasteful and unnecessary and corrupting spending in Congress, he should veto this bill, and we could send it back to him in a New York minute without the pork it is so full of. I wish to discuss the three amendments. Tomorrow, the Senate will vote on my amendment to strike the addition of 10 unrequested C-17 aircraft. As I discussed before, the administration strongly objects to the addition of the $2.5 billion in funding for those 10 unrequested C-17s. That brings up a very interesting question: Why would the administration threaten to veto the bill if it included the F-22s, yet strongly object to the $2.5 billion for the 10 unrequested C-17s? It is very interesting. Given how much our airlift capacity currently exceeds operational requirements, I see no reason we should buy more aircraft. It is not just an additional $2.5 billion for these 10 C-17s, it is an additional $100 million a year to maintain and operate them. One of the great, untold stories of earmarking is that money that is used to fund special interests' projects would otherwise have been used to address the stated needs of our military services. The service chiefs who are in the best position to advise Congress of their priorities are routinely shortchanged so that Senators can fund their pet projects. Each earmark requires departmental administration, and each draws manpower and resources away from critical issues facing a nation at war. I have heard that the impact of these many small earmarks is akin to death by 1,000 cuts. By my preliminary count, there are almost 700 unrequested earmarks in this bill, over 400 of which are not authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act. This represents more than $1.3 billion in funding for unrequested, unauthorized Member interest items, $1.3 billion that would have gone to service priorities. Some have merit. None are military priorities. A few are actually detrimental to the Defense Department. I am referring to earmarks that endure year after year, siphon funding from legitimate programs, and provide no discernable benefit to servicemembers. Tomorrow, the Senate will cast scrutiny on one such project when we vote on my amendment to strike $9.5 million for the MARIAH hypersonic wind tunnel research program in Montana. It has never been requested in the President's budget. It has never been authorized. Yet it has been appropriated every year since 1998. To date, total Defense appropriations for MARIAH account for $68.5 million. The total would be $74 million if we include unrequested earmarks through NASA; $83.5 million if this year's earmark for MARIAH remains in the bill. Here we are, Congress has appropriated millions for an unrequested, unauthorized program that is objectionable enough, but the MARIAH program and the contractor that supports it are case studies in the fundamental problems with the congressional appropriations process. Let me shed a little light on that. MARIAH is a research program intended to develop technologies that would be required to build a national high-speed wind tunnel. Congress originally funded the project through NASA earmarks during the 1990s. NASA responded that they had no interest in the program. From 1998 to 2003, MARIAH was an Air Force program. The Air Force, the leader in hypersonic testing and technology, begged off the program in 2004. So the appropriators moved it to the Army. The Army has no official requirement for this capability and published a report to Congress in 2005 stating their disinterest in the program. Here is an excerpt: The U.S. Army believes it is premature to include the MARIAH wind tunnel concept within their budget as a program of record due to the lack of information and technical data to show that the concept is feasible. Further, the U.S. Army has yet to establish an operational requirement to justify the need for such expenditures in the Future Years Defense Program. Therefore, the U.S. Army does not plan to fund the MARIAH wind tunnel effort . . . Priorities change over time. I asked the Army to detail their current investment in MARIAH and explain how the Army might use this research to develop new capabilities. I received a response yesterday. Here is what the Army said: There are no current operational requirements for a hypersonic missile program within the Army. No Army missions currently require hypersonic flight technologies. The Army does not plan to budget for hypersonic wind tunnel development in the [current or future years] since the Army does not have an operational requirement for a hypersonic missile. Finally, when asked whether the MARIAH program provides value-added capabilities, the Army's answer was ``no.'' So the Army's official response and explanation sounds like their 2005 response. Unfortunately, Congress hasn't been listening. We have poured more than $70 million into it with no sign of stopping and with no discernable return on investment. Let me repeat that: no end date, no return on investment. One group has made out well in the endeavor. Of course, I am referring to lobbyists, including Gage LLC, whose CEO, coincidentally, had been a senior staffer to an appropriator from Montana. The other big winner is the contractor, a company called MSE Technology Applications located, astonishingly, in Butte, MT. MSE is part of a former Department of Energy facility created in the 1970s to conduct energy research. In 1996, MSE had an agreement with DOD to privatize over the course of 5 years, and DOD provided funding to assist the privatization effort. Simultaneously, MSE executives began a pattern of hiring lobbyists, participating in fundraisers for elected Members of Congress, and taking millions of dollars in earmarks. So much for privatization. In fact, MSE itself has claimed it was entirely dependent on Federal earmarks following the so-called privatization effort. More than a decade later, not much has changed. The Montana Standard, the local newspaper, reports that 75 percent of MSE's current business comes from Federal earmarks. According to their CEO: Earmarks can have a negative connotation, but what they mean is we have contracts. So this is a company that would not exist without government earmarks. What did MSE pay for these earmarks? Over $2 million in fees to Washington lobbyists and tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. We have the filings. MSE has perfected the process of using lobbyists to secure Federal funding. Here is the most outrageous part. In 2000, MSE executives pled guilty to making illegal campaign contributions to Federal candidates. Let me explain. According to a report provided to Congress by the Department of Justice: MSE, Inc., an engineering corporation headquartered in Butte, Montana, pled guilty on April 27, 2000, to making contributions to federal candidates through conduits and making corporate contributions to federal candidates in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act. The corporation agreed to pay a criminal fine of $97,500 and a civil penalty to the Federal Election Commission of an additional $19,500. In addition, the corporation's two principal officers agreed, as part of the corporation's probation, to perform community service by lecturing business groups throughout Montana on the prohibitions of the [Federal Election Campaign Act], and to implement a corporate compliance agreement aimed at ensuring that the company did not violate the [Federal Election Campaign Act] in the future. The corporation was sentenced on April 27, 2000, in accordance with the plea agreement. This company has a criminal record. Yet it still receives congressionally approved earmarks, apparently on the basis of connections between it, its lobbyists, and the offices of Members for whom those lobbyists used to work. MSE and its MARIAH project are a black hole for Federal funding. MSE executives have benefited financially on the backs of the taxpayers for many years, and the Department of Defense has needlessly wasted over $70 million on MARIAH research that no one wants. Taxpayers' dollars put toward MARIAH were met with resistance from each Federal agency compelled to fund it by previous earmarks. These earmarks have produced no discernible return. In light of this sordid story--$70 million wasted over 11 years and the prospect of continuing funding for a program no one wants--I ask my colleagues to support my amendment to strike the $9.5 million MARIAH earmark from the fiscal year 2010 Defense appropriations bill. Finally, I have spoken for many years about the earmarking process and the corruption it breeds. I am deeply concerned over the damage it has done to our country and this institution by its continued abuse. We have made some progress in the past couple years but not nearly enough. Legislation we passed in 2007 provided for greater disclosure. While that was a good step forward, the bottom line is that we simply need more disclosure of earmarks. We need to reduce them, with the final goal of eliminating them entirely. The corruption which stems from the practice of earmarking has resulted in former Members of both the House and Senate either under investigation, under indictment, or in prison. Let's be clear. It wasn't inadequate disclosure requirements which led Duke Cunningham to violate his oath of office and take $2.5 million in bribes in exchange for doling out $70 to $80 million of the taxpayers funds to a defense contractor. It was his ability to freely earmark taxpayer funds without question. Tomorrow, Senators will have an opportunity to vote on an amendment I have offered that requires earmarks intended for for-profit entities included in the Defense appropriations bill be competitively bid. I repeat: requires earmarks intended for for-profit entities included in the Defense appropriations bill be competitively bid. That does not seem like it should be too tough. Just competitively bid these earmarks. By requiring full and open competition, Congress can make the process of public funding more transparent and bring to bear the benefits of competition. The results will be lower costs to the government, innovation among contractors and suppliers, and better outcomes for the American taxpayer. I am not the first person to think this is a good idea. The President and the Appropriations Committee in the House of Representatives are both on record endorsing it. Unfortunately, to date, and despite our good intentions, Congress has not been able to make it happen. President Obama has promised to fight ``the special interests, contractors and entrenched lobbyists'' that have bloated past appropriations and distorted military priorities. In March of this year, he called the awarding of earmarks for private companies ``the single most corrupting element of this practice'' and said funding for such projects should be evaluated with a higher level of scrutiny and subject to the same competitive bidding process as Federal contracts. I agree, but I would have gone further by calling for the elimination of earmarks altogether. I was pleased to see our House counterparts expressed interest in competing earmarks intended for private industry. But the Senate Appropriations Committee balked at the suggestion that funding for special interest programs be subject to competition, and the result of recent Senate-House negotiations is that earmarks in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bills will not have to be competitively bid. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. We must not allow this body to go back to the old ways of doing business. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, may I say through the Chair to my friend, the distinguished chairman, I understand there will be side-by- side amendments. I would be glad to enter into a time agreement that is agreeable to the chairman, and not an extended length of time--it is not a complicated issue--and then votes on both side-by-sides. I hope we could announce that agreement shortly, and I thank the chairman for his courtesy. We are discussing now two amendments, as I understand it, and both of them call for testimony before Congress on meeting the United States objectives on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Many of us have been very concerned about the fact that we have not heard from General McChrystal and General Petraeus on this issue of our strategic policy in Afghanistan, and of course most importantly the disposition or dispatch, I might say, of American troops, and increasing American troops to Afghanistan to implement the strategy that, according to Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was agreed upon last March. I must say, without mentioning any classified information, the briefing that I attended yesterday with General Jones doesn't seem to corroborate that statement by Admiral Mullen. But the point is we need to hear from the architects and the commanders. If the President does not want to talk to the commander in the field, General McChrystal very often--in fact, it was reported in a ``60 Minutes'' interview that he gave he said he had spoken to the President once in 70 days, although the President talks to labor leaders almost on a daily basis pushing his health care agenda--the fact is we as Members of Congress, a coequal branch of government, also have a responsibility in this decisionmaking process. I respect the President's role as Commander in Chief. I respect the President of the United States making a decision. But I also cherish the role of the Senate and House of Representatives in being informed as to the views of our military commanders in whom we place the responsibility for the lives of our young men and women who are in harm's way. All we are seeking with this amendment is a date certain, not immediately--the date for this requirement of testimony by General McChrystal, General Petreaus, General Stavridis and perhaps others if necessary--by November 15. That is a month and a half from now. Should not we hear a month and a half from now, within a month and a half, as to what we are considering? I hope the decision would be made clear. Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, in testimony said: The President has given us a clear mission: disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaida . . . But the President, in March, said of the situation--the President of the United States said the situation there was ``increasingly perilous and that the future of this troubled nation is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor Pakistan.'' He also called it a ``war of necessity,'' and declared ``America must no longer deny resources to Afghanistan.'' Obviously I agree with him. Time after time I have made my commitment of willingness and desire to work with him. But it is very difficult for members of the Armed Services Committee and Members of the Senate to work with him if we are not informed by the uniformed commanders in the field. Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, emphasized in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, time is not on our side. There are already somewhere between 62,000 and 68,000 American troops in the field in danger. Tragically, casualties have gone up. We have a responsibility also. We have a responsibility to hear from our commanders in the field. Let me point out, General McChrystal was on ``60 Minutes'' talking about what we needed to do in Afghanistan. General McChrystal gave a speech in London just yesterday talking about what we needed to do. So it is OK with the administration for General McChrystal to go on ``60 Minutes.'' It is OK for him to give a speech at the Institute for Strategic Studies in London. But the administration does not want General McChrystal and General Petreaus before the Senate Armed Services Committee. How does that work? I hope my colleagues will vote for my amendment, which calls for the same, basically, testimony by the commander of the United States Central Command, commander of the United States European Command, and Supreme Allied Commander--Europe, Commander of the United States Forces--Afghanistan, and of course we would like to hear from the United States Ambassador to Afghanistan, Ambassador Eikenberry. This is pretty clear. This is a very clear decision we have to make. We are asking that within a month and a half from now these individuals appear before the respective committees and testify as to what they believe the best strategy is to be employed in order to achieve victory. Why should not the Senate and the Congress and the people of the United States hear, directly in testimony before the Congress, what they believe is the best way to ensure victory in Afghanistan? I understand the debate that is going on within the White House and the deliberations that the President is undertaking as he considers the most heavy responsibility that any President has, and that is to send our young men and women into harm's way. I have some sympathy. But I would point out there are already close to 68,000 young Americans there, and casualties are going up. According to Admiral Mullen, according to every expert, the situation is deteriorating in Afghanistan, so this should not and must not be a leisurely exercise. Decisions have to be made and we--I speak for myself and I am sure all of my colleagues--we want to be part of that decisionmaking. We do not want to make that decision because that is the responsibility of the President of the United States, but it is also the responsibility of the Congress of the United States to appropriate the money for it. When a President lost the confidence of the American people and the Congress of the United States in a war long ago and far away, the Congress of the United States did cut off the funding for further assistance in Vietnam. I hope the Senate will act in a positive fashion and act on what I think is a reasonable request, that within a month and a half we could have the testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. I remind my colleagues, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the distinguished Congressman Ike Skelton, and the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, also want this testimony to take place. The majority leader of the House of Representatives, Congressman Hoyer, has also called for testimony before the Congress of the United States. Why the administration should be reluctant to send these people before us so we can, in any way we can find possible, support the President of the United States as he makes these tough decisions--which we cannot do unless we are informed of the opinion of those we are sending to command and lead in battle--then it is difficult for us to show our support for the President in the form of appropriations bills and authorizations as to what is needed without hearing from the commanders in the field. There will be discussion about General Petreaus's testimony before the Congress of the United States. I remind my colleagues the decision was made by the President on the surge very rapidly; that the decision was made and General Petraeus was called before what--appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee to give the reasons for that. I think it is very important. It is very important that the man the President of the United States fired, the previous commander--let's be clear, fired the previous commander because he had confidence in General McChrystal--that we should also be allowed the ability to hear about his vision and his strategy that would bring about a successful conclusion of a long, tragic, hard involvement in Afghanistan. I hope we can have the same luxury that the Institute for Strategic Studies in London received with General McChrystal giving a speech there and answering questions; that we would have the same courtesy that ``60 Minutes,'' the producers and commentators on ``60 Minutes'' just received. I hope the Senate would receive that same ability to directly question General McChrystal, General Petreaus, and others. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to respond to my colleague on that issue.

Mr. McCAIN. I would say to my colleague, we are asking if there are any other speakers. We should know that in a few more minutes. Then we would agree to a time agreement.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I ask the distinguished chairman, does that mean 30 minutes from now, equally divided, or the time that has already been consumed?

Mr. McCAIN. From now. I do not object.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to point out what Admiral Mullen at the Joint Chiefs of Staff said: Time is not on our side. We cannot afford to leisurely address this issue. I believe the Congress needs to be involved. The Commander in Chief is the Commander in Chief. But the Congress has a role to play because only the Congress can provide needed funding and develop other policies as regards the responsibility we all have when our government decides to send young Americans into harm's way. I have watched a lot of decisions being made in my time. I have agreed with some and disagreed with others. One of the earliest decisions I was involved in was many years ago when Ronald Reagan decided to send marines to Beirut. At the time, I thought the mission was not sufficiently resourced and I thought it would unnecessarily put young marines in harm's way. I objected; I spoke against it. Unfortunately, I was correct. History does have a tendency to repeat itself. The fact is, unless this effort in Afghanistan is properly resourced, as recommended by General McChrystal, as recommended by Admiral Mullen and supported by history, we are doomed to failure. To think that a month and a half would elapse before that decision was made, because the strategy was decided on last March, and then to go through a bizarre sequence of events--I have never seen anything like it. First, General McChrystal was told not to send his troop request to Washington while these discussions were going on. After that was revealed to be the farce it was, now the Secretary of Defense is not going to forward the troop request to the White House as they make decisions on the number of troops needed. How does that work? Let's get this straight. The Secretary of Defense has said he is not sending over the number of troops requested by General McChrystal, which is known to everyone as 30,000 to 40,000 troops. Apparently, it will be known to everyone except the President, who is supposed to make the decision. We have legitimate questions about a process such as that to start with. No Commander in Chief can make a decision about how to conduct a conflict unless that Commander in Chief knows what resources are required. Without having the recommendation for the number of troops being transmitted to the Commander in Chief, there is no way a rational decision can be made. What is going on here is pretty obvious. It is very obvious what is going on. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Petraeus, General McChrystal--all know we need additional troops in the range of 30,000 to 40,000, and the administration is backing off of that or trying to find the exit sign. It is well known. It had been broadcast all over television that there are individuals--including the Vice President, now, unfortunately, the National Security Adviser, the chief political adviser to the President, Mr. Rahm Emanuel--who don't want to alienate the left base of the Democratic Party. That is what this is all about. The American people need to know what our military commanders, in their best judgment, think we need to defend this Nation. They need to know it within the next month and a half. Do I need to remind my colleagues we have 68,000 Americans there now? Just a few days ago, five brave young Americans died in 1 day. Admiral Mullen said in his testimony before the Armed Services Committee that the clock is ticking. We are running out of time. This is an urgent situation. This is not a decision as to whether to send troops into harm's way. Troops are already in harm's way. They are already there, and they are getting wounded and killed while, according to the President's National Security Adviser, we are considering all options. Shouldn't we consider seriously the option of the recommendations of military commanders? I am not saying they have the final say; I am saying they should be given great weight. Here we are asking for testimony from those people who, again--the President fired the commander in the field to replace him with General McChrystal, and yet we are not transmitting the fundamental and most difficult aspect of General McChrystal's recommendations as to how to implement a strategy that was agreed on last March. I fear that domestic political considerations are impacting a decision which has to do with the future security of the United States. Just recently, the former President of Pakistan, President Musharraf, said that American delay is being interpreted as a sign of weakness by countries in the region. We left Afghanistan once. We helped the brave Afghans drive out the Russians who were then trying to make Afghanistan part of the Soviet Union. We drove them out and we left. What happened? The Taliban took control. Al-Qaida cooperated with them, and the attacks on the United States of 9/11 took place by people who were trained in Afghanistan. Let's have no doubt what is at stake. The American people and their representatives at least need to hear within the next month and a half, 45 days, as to what the recommendations and strategy of our military leaders are. I emphasize, they are not the last word. The Commander in Chief has the last word. But the Commander in Chief, whatever decision he makes, also has to come to Congress for the necessary assets and authorization to do whatever his strategy is. So we do play a significant role. The American people and their elected representatives, as the chairman of the House Armed Services has said, as the majority leader of the House of Representatives has said, need to hear from these military leaders. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again, unfortunately, a lot of the information we have to get is through the media rather than testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. I do think it is worthy of note that there is a story dated October 1, 2009, which says: The top military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, rejected calls for scaling down military objectives there on Thursday and said Washington did not have unlimited time to settle on a new strategy to pursue the eight-year-old war. . . . General McChrystal said that the situation in Afghanistan was serious and that ``neither success nor failure can be taken for granted.'' . . . General McChrystal was asked by a member of an audience that included retired military commanders and security specialists whether he would support an idea put forward by Mr. Biden to scale back the American military presence in Afghanistan to focus on tracking down the leaders of Al Qaeda, in place of the current broader effort now under way to defeat the Taliban. ``The short answer is: no,'' he said. ``You have to navigate from where you are, not where you wish to be. A strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short-sighted strategy.'' He did not mention Mr. Biden by name. All of us here have great affection and appreciation for the Vice President. We have all gotten to know him and like him over the years. But the fact is, the Vice President of the United States, in the first gulf war, after Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait, voted against the resolution, saying it would be another Vietnam war. He has voted consistently against U.S. involvement. And the latest, of course, was when his idea was to divide Iraq into three different countries. So the Vice President does have a clear record of being consistently wrong. I hope that is taken into consideration when he comes up with his ideas about Afghanistan. General McChrystal has been reported to be seeking as many as 40,000 additional American troops for the war, a number that has generated concern among other top American commanders. But that number--which is known to everyone, and keeps being reported--that number is not going to be transmitted to the President by the Secretary of Defense. You can't make that up. Everybody knows it, but it is not going to be sent to the President by the Secretary of Defense. Anyway: In a confidential assessment of the war last month now under consideration by the Obama administration, General McChrystal said that he needs additional troops within the next year or else the conflict ``will likely result in failure.'' Mr. President, we have a limited amount of time, but I do not have to tell most people and colleagues here what the consequences of failure in Afghanistan might be. So what we are asking is, sometime within the next month and a half--the next month and a half--that we get General McChrystal in particular but also the most brilliant general I have ever encountered in my life, General Petraeus, and others, to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Maybe the House Armed Services Committee, whose chairman said they needed that testimony, will proceed without us. I would feel very badly if the U.S. Senate were not given the same opportunity to have General McChrystal and General Petraeus appear before them, as the House Armed Services Committee chairman has said they want. I want to emphasize to my colleagues, we are asking, sometime within the next 45 days, an appearance by the leaders we have put in charge of the lives of our young American men and women. We are just asking for them to come and testify before our committees of jurisdiction, to exercise our responsibilities as representatives of our States. That is all we are asking. That is all we are asking. There are already 68,000 there. They are being wounded and killed as we speak. And as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said: Time is not on our side. The situation is deteriorating. Shouldn't the Senate Armed Services Committee and, through us, the American people and the Senate Appropriations Committee, which has its responsibilities, also hear from these great leaders who are in charge of the lives and safety and well-being of our men and women in uniform and are charged with achieving victory and not defeat, achieving success and not failure in Afghanistan? Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. McCAIN. Well, Mr. President, let me say, if I could--I will use my remaining 2 minutes--I appreciate very much the relationship I have developed over more than 20 years with the chairman of the committee. From time to time, we have had differences and vigorous debate. I want to emphasis, I respect the opinions and views and authority of the chairman of the committee. We just simply have an open and honest disagreement. I hope my colleagues will understand the urgency of this situation and agree to my amendment that does not in any way diminish my respect and appreciation of the way the Senator from Michigan chairs the committee and acts on a bipartisan basis, which is a long tradition of the Armed Services Committee. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.