John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. So I wish to tell my colleagues, I will be coming to the floor a lot and talking about this, sometimes with charts. This practice has to stop. We cannot afford not only the earmarking because of the costs, but we can't afford to have the continued corruption that is associated with this. I know some of my colleagues are offended when I use the word ``corruption,'' but when former Members of Congress are residing in Federal prison and their aides and former staffers and others are indicted and convicted in Federal court, I don't know how you can describe it as anything else. So we will be talking a lot more in the days and weeks ahead. The American people are sick and tired of it and so am I. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment by Senator Akaka, the distinguished chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I would imagine has some very good and helpful provisions associated with it. It also applies to Federal employees and perhaps some Department of Defense employees are included in that. But it is a very large amendment. It is composed of six retirement-related provisions and some expenditure of funds. As I understand the bill, there is not provision for paying for it. I may be wrong. Let me point out that the Chair and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee have looked at these issues as well. I am wondering why it was not included then on Homeland Security. We just finished doing the Homeland Security appropriations. It would reduce mandatory spending by $36 billion over 10 years. It has significant costs that will have to be appropriated, at least $2.5 billion over the next 10 years. Because they would be added on this bill, it would add to the cost of the National Defense Authorization Act and would exceed our budget allocation. Properly, it would be subject to a budget point of order which the Senate would then speak on whether it is an appropriate budget point of order. There has been no strong opposition from the administration, and these costs were not included in the administration's budget request. I understand that a lot of these provisions, because of the large number of employees, fall under the Department of Defense. I don't think it is a good idea to have a bill of this magnitude, although certainly the amendment is in order--but I am not sure it is appropriate that a bill of this magnitude should be tacked on to the Defense authorization bill. I say that fully aware that we are tacking on a hate crimes bill which has even a lot less to do with the Department of Defense. I say to my friend, I will be glad to have a vote on this amendment. Perhaps there is going to be a budget point of order raised on this amendment. But hopefully we can alert our colleagues and give them the opportunity in the next few minutes to raise a budget point of order or ask for a recorded vote. If there is no objection, then we would have a voice vote. I wish to point out to my colleagues, this is fairly large legislation which does fall under the proper authority of the Homeland Security Committee. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Lieberman amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that the U.S. Government should continue developing and planning for the proposed deployments of elements of a ground-based midcourse defense system. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for this amendment and his willingness to work with all parties, which will then allow us to voice vote this very important amendment. Obviously, there are a lot of strong feelings on the issue of missile defense in Europe. I believe this amendment addresses and expresses our concerns and our goals, including a midcourse radar in the Czech Republic and ground-based interceptors in Poland, as well as the reservation of funds for the development and deployment of missile defense systems in Europe. As rogue nations, including North Korea and Iran, push the nuclear envelope and work tirelessly to develop delivery vehicles capable of reaching America and its allies, we must aggressively develop the systems necessary to counter such belligerent efforts. Enhancing missile defense capabilities in Europe is an essential component to addressing rogue state and in-theater threats we face and expect to face in the future. As Iran works to develop ballistic missile capabilities of all ranges, the United States must reaffirm its commitments to its allies and develop and deploy effective missile defense systems. The Iranian ballistic missile threat is real and growing. During the NATO summit in Bucharest in April of 2008, the allies cited the threat of ballistic missile proliferation as one of great concern to their forces, territory, and populations. Missile defense in Europe, according to NATO ``forms part of a broader response to counter this threat . . . [a] substantial contribution to the protection of Allies from long- range ballistic missiles to be provided by the planned deployment of European-based United States missile defense assets.'' Uncertainty about the future of missile defense in Europe, some stemming from perceptions, whether wanted or not, that Russia will have a say or veto power over the disposition of our missile defense architecture, has caused concerns both here in the Senate and among some of our closest European allies. I urge the administration to provide some clarity on how it plans to honor the commitments the United States has made to Poland and the Czech Republic. The last administration recognized the importance and need for a European component to our missile defense system, reached out to the Governments of Poland and the Czech Republic, and asked that they make what many at the time perceived as an unpopular agreement. Despite unwanted threats from Russia, both governments recognized the importance such a capability would provide to their citizens and to Europe as a whole and agreed to allow the United States to place ground-based interceptors in Poland and a midcourse radar site in the Czech Republic. Given the perception, one that has been strengthened by the testimony of administration officials before the Armed Services Committee, that the United States is preparing to back away from its commitments to our Polish and Czech allies, this amendment comes at an important moment. It was only a year ago, after all, that the United States and the Czech Republic affirmed that: Within the context of, and consistent with, both the North Atlantic Treaty and the Czech Republic . . . the United States is committed to the security of the Czech Republic. [And that] the Czech Republic and the United States will work together to counter emerging military or non-military threats posed by third parties or to minimize the effects of such threats. Similarly, on August 20, 2008, the United States signed an agreement with Poland stating that the: United States is committed to the security of Poland and of any U.S. facilities located on the territory of the Republic of Poland. . . .The United States and Poland intend to expand air and missile defense cooperation. In this regard, we have agreed on an important new area of such cooperation involving the deployment of a U.S. Army Patriot air and missile defense battery in Poland. Our Polish friends are clearly uneasy and have been quite vocal. During a forum earlier this year in Brussels, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said: We hope we don't regret our trust in the United States. I urge the administration and my colleagues in the Senate to join me in reiterating our commitment to the security and freedom of these nations as well as deterring and defending them against any threats to their security. With respect to Russia and the ongoing START negotiations, I urge the President to continue to reject any Russian attempt to link reductions in offensive strategic nuclear weapons with defensive capabilities such as missile defense. Russia, too, must recognize that the current Iranian path is unsettling to the global interests of all peace-seeking nations. Missile defense in Europe is not and should not be viewed in Moscow as some new form of post-Cold War aggression. It is, rather, a reasonable and prudent response to the very real threats the Iranian regime continues to pose to the United States, Europe, and the world. Again, I thank my good friend from Connecticut for offering this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from North Carolina. He and the other Senator, the junior Senator from North Carolina, argued passionately and, to some degree, persuasively in the markup of this legislation. I think it is very appropriate that they are reacting to local concerns and perhaps even the fact that I think, in straight talk, perhaps the Department of the Navy has not approached some of these communities in a way that would gain the cooperation of the communities. I agree also with Senator Burr that the people of North Carolina are among the most patriotic that we have in our Nation. But facts are facts, and the Navy needs a field to train carrier pilots stationed on the east coast within the range of both Naval Air Station Oceana and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in North Carolina. The Navy needs to field trained pilots in order for us to have the best qualified pilots in the world. Part of that training, of course, is to learn landing on aircraft carriers, among other types of training. Again, a lot of local communities in North Carolina and Virginia have expressed concern about noise, about hours, and about the impact it will have on their communities. During the markup we adopted an amendment by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, that basically requires the Navy to do extensive consultation with local communities, to consider assistance to local communities in case there is substantial economic impact, and to do everything they can to reach an agreement with the local communities as they go through this siting procedure. Madam President, I cannot change geography. I think this committee can do a lot of things, but we cannot change the map. The map is that two of our major air stations, Oceana and Cherry Point, are where our pilots and air wings are stationed. They have to have the ability to train, and they have to train someplace within a reasonable range. So I believe after a spirited discussion in committee, the Senator from Virginia came up with a very excellent amendment that basically requires a lot more participation in the local communities, a lot more consideration and consultation, and even--I have never seen this before--some economic assistance to the local communities, if necessary. Nobody likes to be awakened at 1 or 2 a.m. by the sound of jet engines. I understand that. But I also understand--and I hope our colleagues do--that on the entire east coast, because of population and the location of these two major bases--Cherry Point and Oceana--we don't have much choice but to look in Virginia and North Carolina. We cannot let, over time, that requirement be overridden forever. We can try to accommodate and understand, and we can try to do whatever is necessary to ease the burden. But the fact is, our pilots have to train. I appreciate the fact that both Senators from North Carolina were eloquent in stating the concerns their local communities have, which may be under consideration for the location of an airfield--just as the Senator from Virginia was concerned; but the Senator from Virginia, I think, in his amendment, laid out some parameters that I think will lead to a fair process, which will take into consideration the very understandable concerns of the local communities. With reluctance but concern for the ability of our Navy and Marine Corps pilots to train and be adequately prepared to fight, I oppose this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would like to, once again, thank Chairman Levin for the work he has done in this bill on the structure of military commissions. I appreciate his working closely with me and with Senator Graham, and I believe that the changes in this bill put our military commissions framework on a solid footing so that our nation will be ready to proceed with the trials of terrorist detainees by military commission. In the same vein, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Levin's amendment No. 1710, which deals with the protection of classified information used in military commissions. This amendment is based on extensive meetings between our staffs and the professional prosecutors who wish to ensure that classified information receives the fullest possible protection in the course of these trials. The amendment is based in large part on the Classified Information Procedures Act, CIPA, which includes protections for the use of classified information in trials. Based on 20 years of experience with CIPA, and with 3 years of experience with the Military Commissions Act, the protections contained in this amendment are what the professional prosecutors believe they need to ensure that classified information is not improperly disclosed and to allow trials to proceed more efficiently by providing military judges with an extensive body of law based on CIPA upon which to base their decisions. Avoiding the unauthorized disclosure of classified information is a key to ensuring the protection of our national interests, and so I am pleased to advocate the adoption of this amendment. I note that the Departments of Defense and Justice concur with the language contained in this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator have an estimate how much this will cost the taxpayers?

Mr. McCAIN. I understand from the amendment there is a provision that all the money is paid back.

Mr. McCAIN. Could the Senator tell me the connection between this amendment and the Defense authorization bill?

Mr. McCAIN. May I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, I am in agreement. We do strange things around here, particularly late in consideration of the bill. I thank him for at least bringing it to the attention of the American taxpayer.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think we have a package of cleared amendments we would like to do first, if that is agreeable.

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

Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion upon the table. The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Levin and the staff as well on both sides of the aisle and thank Senator Levin for his patience, for his perseverance, his knowledge, and his commitment to the security of this Nation and the men and women who serve it. I am honored to have the opportunity to serve with him. I share his praise for our staffs. In addition, I also thank our floor staffs who make our machinery run when it comes to a grinding halt from time to time. I am grateful for their help, their assistance, and the hard work they have given us as well. I think we have a managers' package, and we will be done for this year. Again, my sincere appreciation to the chairman whom I had the great honor and privilege now of serving with for nearly a quarter of a century. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Particularly Lula.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding we may move ahead shortly with debate and vote on an amendment by Senator Brownback and a side-by-side vote on the same subject with Senator Kerry. I believe Senator Kerry's amendment would be first. Hopefully, we can agree with that soon.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to ask several questions of the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, has the Senator from Kansas detected any change in North Korean behavior since the imposition of sanctions by the United Nations?

Mr. McCAIN. Including launching missiles on the Fourth of July.

Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it true that there is evidence that North Koreans were involved in the construction of a nuclear facility in Syria which the Israelis felt was enough of a threat to their national security that they destroyed it?