John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it true that there is a published news report that North Korea and Iran have worked together in the development of nuclear weapons and nuclear technology, and if Iran acquires that capability, it certainly ratchets up the tensions between Iran and Israel?

Mr. McCAIN. The latest information in the last few days is that there is cooperation between North Korea and Myanmar, better known to some of us as Burma, one of the real rogue nations of the world.

Mr. McCAIN. So if that North Korean ship, which was shadowed for a period of time by the U.S. Navy, had gone into port in Myanmar, do you think there is any likelihood the Government of Myanmar would have complied with the U.N. resolution that required that ship to be inspected by ``port authorities''?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator. Of course, maybe North Korea, when we look at it with a very fine definition of terrorism--from the recent Washington Post article about 200,000 people in the most horrible prison conditions in the world perhaps would argue that we should do whatever we can--short, obviously, of any military action--to try to see that the North Korean regime acts at least in some civilized fashion.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object and I will not object, I say in the case of the amendment of Senator Cardin, there is no objection on this side. We would be glad to agree to a 15-minute time agreement, if that is agreeable.

Mr. McCAIN. In response to the Senator from Alabama, I will do everything I can to get his amendment in order. Senator Isakson and Senator Burr and Senator Bond and others have all come up and said they want their amendments in line. I think we have to have some kind of consultation on our side to establish a priority. I also would like to point out, the amendment of Senator Sessions, I believe, is on missile defense, a very important amendment. I also think, in full disclosure, the majority leader, I am told, will file cloture tonight, which will then, at some point, rule out nongermane amendments. But I will do everything I can to get Senator Sessions' amendment up, in order. But we have been following a process, as I am sure the Senator from Alabama knows, of one side's amendment and then the other side's amendment, going back and forth.

Mr. McCAIN. I am not sure anyone wants to challenge Senator Cardin's eloquence.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, it is also my understanding then that at the beginning of business tomorrow we will be taking up the Kyl amendment and the Bayh either second degree or side-by-side, with 2 hours equally divided.

Mr. McCAIN. So we would be taking up the Kyl amendment first, and then----

Mr. McCAIN. And there are time agreements on both amendments?

Mr. McCAIN. Once the other sides of these amendments are aware of the side-by-side, then it is our intention to have an hour or two equally divided, and then move on to pending amendments.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairman. I think that clears up what our plans are for a good part of tomorrow.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the chair. I, again, thank my friend, the distinguished chairman, for proposing this amendment. I thank the distinguished chairman for being the sponsor of this amendment. It is a privilege to work with him on this as well as many other issues. This amendment is probably the most impactful amendment I have seen in this body on almost any issue, much less the issue of defense. It boils down to whether we are going to continue the business as usual of once a weapons system gets into full production it never dies or whether we are going to take the necessary steps to reform the acquisition process in this country. The F-22, in itself, is $1.75 billion. That is an impressive number anyplace outside the beltway. But more important than that, it is a signal that we are not going to continue to build weapons systems that are plagued with cost overruns, which outlive their requirements for defending this Nation and, very frankly, starts to gain control of the acquisition process which is completely out of control. The Government Accountability Office recently concluded that there were over $295 billion in cost overruns in the last several years--$295 billion in cost overruns. Recently, a close friend of mine and great leader and former Secretary of the Navy wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal. He stated: When John McCain was shot down over Hanoi in 1967, he was flying an A-4 sky hawk. That jet cost $860,000. By the way, I didn't know that cost to the taxpayers I had caused. But the jet cost $860,000. Inflation has risen by 700 percent since then. So Mr. McCain's A-4 cost $6.1 million in 2008 dollars. Applying a generous factor of three for technological improvements, the price for a 2008 Navy F-18 fighter should be $18 million. Instead, we are paying about $90 million for each new fighter. As a result, the Navy cannot buy sufficient numbers. This is disarmament without a treaty. The situation is worse in the Air Force. Then Secretary Lehman says: In 1983, I was in the Pentagon meeting that launched the F- 22 Raptor. The plan was to buy 648 jets beginning in 1996 for $60 million each. . . . That was in 1983 dollars. Now they cost $350 million apiece and the Obama budget caps the program at 187 jets. Then he adds: At least they are safe from cyberattack since no one in China knows how to program the '83 vintage IBM software that runs them. He then goes on to cite other problems, including Navy shipbuilding fiascoes, et cetera. . . . the Army's Future Combat System that was meant to re- equip the entire Army, the 400 percent cost overrun of the new Air Force weather satellite . . . And similar cost overruns. It is out of control, I say to my colleagues. I will match my commitment to equipping the men and women in the military with that of anyone in this body, but it has to stop, and this vote on the F-22 will determine whether it is business as usual with the earmarking and pork- barreling of billions of dollars which has bred corruption--we have former Members of the Congress residing in Federal prison--or whether we are going to finally get it under control. Who better to be a spokesperson, in my view, than our Secretary of Defense? I have known and admired many Secretaries of Defense. I know of no one whom I admire more than Secretary Gates. He gave a very important speech, on July 16, at the Economic Club of Chicago--a remarkable speech. I hope all my colleagues would have the chance to read it. In part of it he says, about the problems we are having in defense spending: First, there is the Congress, which is understandably concerned, especially in these tough economic times, about protecting jobs in certain states and congressional districts. There is the defense and aerospace industry, which has an obvious financial stake in the survival and growth of these programs. And there is the institutional military itself--within the Pentagon, and as expressed through an influential network of retired generals and admirals, some of whom are paid consultants to the defense industry, and some who often are quoted as experts in the news media. Secretary Gates goes on to say: As a result, many past attempts by my predecessors to end failing or unnecessary programs went by the wayside. Nonetheless, I determined in a triumph of hope over experience, and the President agreed-- I wish to emphasize my strong support and appreciation for the President's stand on this issue. --and the President agreed, that given the urgency of the wars we are in, the daunting global security environment we will inhabit for decades to come, and our country's economic problems, we simply cannot afford to move ahead with business as usual. Then, later on, he talks about the F-22. Air superiority and missile defense--two areas where the budget has attracted the most criticism--provide case studies. Let me start with the controversy over the F-22 fighter jet. We had to consider, when preparing for a future conventional state-on-state conflict, what is the right mix of the most advanced fighter aircraft and other weapons to deal with the known and projected threats to U.S. air supremacy. For example, we now have unmanned aerial vehicles that can simultaneously perform intelligence, reconnaissance-- Et cetera. The President's budget would buy 48 of the most advanced UAVs. We also took into consideration the capabilities of the newest manned combat aircraft program, the stealth F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F- 22. He goes on to say how important the F-35 is, and then he says: The F-22 is clearly a capability we do need--a niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios-- specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet. The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict. I ask my colleagues, would you ask yourselves why the F-22 has never flown over Iraq or Afghanistan. It has been in production for nearly 5 years. It has never flown over Iraq or Afghanistan. And I want to emphasize that I think it is an important fighter. We are building 187 of them. The question before this body is why we continue to build more, whether we continue to build more, or the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter, which goes to the Marine Corps and the Navy and the Air Force. Is this the weapons system we need to balance our entire capability of manned aircraft? I would ask my colleagues, since the F-22 was on the drawing boards and moved into production, look at the advancement in unmanned aerial vehicles. I say that as an old pilot. The unmanned aerial vehicles have been performing a magnificent job both in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have been a critical element sometimes on the battlefields. And this President's budget understands that and gives extreme priority to that. So as we go on, in light of these factors, Secretary Gates goes on to say: With the support of Air Force leadership, I concluded that 183--the program of record since 2005, plus four more added in the FY 09 supplemental--was a sufficient number of F-22s and recommended as such to the President. The reaction from parts of Washington has been predictable for many of the reasons I described before. The most substantive criticism is that completing the F-22 program means we are risking the future of U.S. air supremacy. To assess this risk, it is worth looking at real-world potential threat and assessing the capabilities that other countries have now or in the pipeline. The fact is, in the view of the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and most any objective observer of the military scene, they believe the F-22 is important, we need to have what we have, but it is now time to move on to the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter. So this amendment really means, are we going to look at the real and compelling needs we have to have in order to win the war in Afghanistan, continue our success in Iraq, and put our funds into that kind of equipment and weapons systems or are we going to continue? Finally, I have great sympathy for the Senator from Georgia and other Senators who have come to the floor. I understand the sincerity of their views. I respect them. I would also point out, though, that to argue we should build weapons systems in the name of jobs is not what we should be about. What we should be about is procuring and building the best weapons systems to ensure our national security and how we can best equip the men and women who are in harm's way all around the world today. So I understand the economic impact, particularly in these hard times. My sympathy goes out to the communities that are dependent on the contracts for the F-22 aircraft. All I can say to them is we will do everything we can to help you and your families and make the adjustments, and there will be--we continue to increase spending on defense. We hope that we will be able to provide you with the necessary jobs and manufacturing that would be devoted to what we have ascertained as our national defense weapons systems procurement priorities, I say with sympathy to my colleagues who are deeply concerned about the loss of jobs in these difficult economic times. But this is not the way to provide jobs. Our obligation is to defend this Nation. So I think this amendment is overdue. I think it will be a significant, a very significant amendment, as I said before, as to whether we will get our priorities straight and listen to our esteemed Secretary of Defense, our President, our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other military leaders in whose hands we entrust to make the tough decisions. I understand the final decision is here in Congress, but I also don't think we should dismiss the arguments that have been made by I think one of the finest men to ever serve this country, and that is Secretary of Defense Gates. I yield the floor. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Utah?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, we would be glad to yield a couple more minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. McCAIN. Three, four. I ask the Senator, do you want to go ahead now?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I will be fairly brief. This argument has been made, and we pretty well covered most of the issue. I would remind my colleagues that all the things we do are a matter of choice because we do not have unlimited amounts of funding, obviously, and if you spend money on one project, then obviously you may have to spend less on another. That is the case of the F-35, if we do not eliminate this $1.75 billion. But most importantly, I want to point out again, this amendment is more than just about a weapons system. This amendment is about whether we will stop doing business as usual; that is, continuing to fund weapons systems that are no longer needed and unnecessary. We are not saying the F-22 is not a good aircraft. We are saying it is time to end the production of the F-22. The President of the United States has threatened to veto this entire bill. That is not good for the men and women in the military to have to go through this whole process over again. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and, very importantly, the Secretary of Defense, who has served now under two Presidents and has gained the respect and appreciation of all of us for his service--Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Secretary of Defense Gates' speech last July 16 to the Economic Club of Chicago be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am a student of history, and there is one particular President whom I have grown, along with historians, to appreciate more and more for his two terms as President of the United States; that is, Dwight David Eisenhower. We were at peace during President Eisenhower's term, and many believe that perhaps the war in Vietnam might have been avoided if we had heeded his wise counsel. There are many things President Eisenhower did to contribute to this Nation both in war and in peace. On several occasions, I have reread his farewell speech of January 17, 1961. In his speech, President Eisenhower said: In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. He also said: To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty at stake. I would only add to President Eisenhower's farewell address to the Nation--which is compelling in many ways--that the words should be changed from ``military-industrial complex'' to ``military-industrial- congressional complex.'' What we are seeing here, with the advice and counsel of our President, of our Secretary of Defense, of our uniformed military, with rare exception, is a recommendation that we stop with this aircraft and build another--not that we stop building fighter aircraft for our inventory, not that we stop defending this Nation with weapons systems we need. We are even defending a weapons system's continued production that has never flown in the two wars in which we are engaged. So I urge my colleagues to understand the impact of this amendment. If we are able to succeed, it is going to send a signal that we are stopping business as usual, and we must move forward providing the men and women with the necessary means to win the struggles we are in throughout the world, especially two wars. So I urge my colleagues to understand that sacrifices will be made. Jobs will be lost. It will cause disruption in some communities. But our first obligation is the defense of this Nation and the use of scarce defense dollars in the most effective fashion. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before my colleague Senator Lieberman leaves the floor, I wish to thank him for this amendment. We are working right now to see if we can get the amendment pending and possibly a voice vote, because it is clear it is a very important amendment and one where I think we need to express very strongly the sense of the Senate, given the situation as it exists in Iran. I wish to thank Senator Lieberman, and right now it is my understanding that your side is checking to see if it is an agreeable amendment. Hopefully, we will get that decision and move forward with it right away on a voice vote, if that is agreeable to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment is straightforward and expresses the sense of the Senate that there should be a date certain-- and soon--by which Iran is required to end its nuclear program or face severe sanctions. The amendment expresses that if the Iranian regime has not accepted the offer of the United States of direct diplomatic talks by the time of the G20 summit in late September or if it has not suspended all of its nuclear enrichment and reprocessing activities within 60 days after the summit, and if the U.N. Security Council does not adopt new and significant and meaningful sanctions on the regime, the President should sanction the Central Bank of Iran. The situation with respect to Iran is nearing the crisis point, if it is not there already. We have all watched the brutal crackdown in the streets of Tehran and elsewhere as the Iranian regime imposed the results of a fraudulent election. We have been astonished by the courage and resolve of those Iranian citizens who have protested for their own inalienable rights in the face of repression. And we have known that, while these dramatic events have played themselves out, the Iranian regime has continued its enrichment of uranium, growing ever closer to the day on which it has a nuclear weapons capability. The Iranian regime has gotten away with too much for too long. Its illicit nuclear activities, combined with its development of unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles, support for Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, and its repeated threats against Israel and the United States, represent a real and growing threat to the security of the United States and the Middle East. It is in the interest of the United States, and the world's other great powers, to achieve an end to the Iranian nuclear program. The administration has held out an ``open hand,'' making clear that it intends to open direct talks with Iran. Yet 3\1/2\ months since the President's formal offer, the Iranian government has made no response, nor has it suspended its enrichment activities, as required by U.N. Security Council resolutions. Time is not on the side of those pushing the Iranians to cease these dangerous actions. Administration officials and others, including the French President, have stated that they will not wait interminably while the Iranian nuclear program proceeds. At the G-8 summit 2 weeks ago, the assembled leaders agreed that the Iranians do not have forever, and that they should return to the negotiating table by the time of the G-20 summit in September. This amendment puts the Senate on record behind that timeframe, irrespective of any Senator's individual view about the likelihood of agreement soon. Make no mistake: we must not wait interminably. According to the IAEA's latest report, Iran has increased its stockpile of low enriched uranium by some 60 percent in the previous 6 months, and has brought the number of active centrifuges above 7,000. The IAEA also reported that Iran denied inspectors access to the Arak heavy water reactor. As the threats--including to the State of Israel--continue. As the Secretary of State has recently articulated, should Iran continue to defy the international community, it must face severe sanctions. Should the regime not take up the historic offer extended to it, this resolution advocates sanctions on the Iranian Central Bank, the country's major connection to the international financial system. The U.S. Treasury Department has stated that the central bank has engaged in deceptive financial practices and facilitated the movement of funds to those involved in proliferation and terrorist activities. This must end, and in fact 67 Senators have cosponsored legislation-- the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act--that urges the President to sanction the central bank. By adopting this resolution, we will send an unmistakable message to the government of Iran that its actions are unacceptable and will result in real and severe consequences if continued. The administration has offered to talk; the ball is in the Iranian court, and if that regime continues down its destructive path, we have no choice but to impose crippling sanctions for its continued defiance. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Let me point out again, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, an important sense of the Senate but certainly one that allows the administration the latitude it needs in its handling of its relations with Iran. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up the Lieberman-Kyl amendment and ask for its immediate consideration. It is at the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. The amendment is in the name of Senators Kyl and Lieberman. I am calling it up on their behalf.

Mr. McCAIN. I object. Let's dispose of the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I object to the Senator from Florida going into morning business until we dispose of the amendment. Then he can do it right away.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Florida, we will find out if there are others who want to speak on his amendment. If not, we are in favor of disposing of his amendment. Part of the agreement we made, in order for us to proceed, was that if anyone came to the floor to speak on the pending amendment, that Senator would have priority. If it is agreeable to the Senator from Florida, the Senator from New York would go ahead and then we could go back to him speaking in morning business.