John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, do I have the floor?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 754, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act. I want to thank my colleagues Chairman Burr and Vice Chairman Feinstein for their leadership on this critically important legislation. This bill, of which I am an original cosponsor, was overwhelmingly approved by a 14-to-1 vote in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in March. Enacting legislation to confront the accumulating dangers of cyber threats must be among the highest national security priorities of the Congress. Cyber attacks on our Nation have become disturbingly common. More recently, it was the Office of Personnel Management. A few weeks before that, it was the Pentagon network, the White House, and the State Department. Before that it was Anthem and Sony--just to name a few. The status quo is unacceptable, and Congress needs to do its part in passing this legislation. But the President, as our Nation's Commander in Chief, must also do his part to deter the belligerence of our adversaries in cyber space. The threats from China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran--not to mention the aspirations of terrorist organizations like ISIL and Al Qaeda--are steadily growing in number and severity. And our national security leadership has warned us repeatedly that we could face a cyber attack against our Nation's critical infrastructure in the not too distant future. I believe our response to such an attack, or lack thereof, could define the future of warfare. To date, the U.S. response to cyber attacks has been tepid at best, and nonexistent at worst. Unless and until the President uses the authorities he has to deter, defend, and respond to the growing number and severity of cyber attacks, we will risk not just more of the same but emboldened adversaries and terrorist organizations that will continuously pursue more severe and destructive cyber attacks. As ADM Mike Rogers, the commander of U.S. Cyber Command, told listeners at the Aspen Security Forum a couple weeks ago, ``to date there is little price to pay for engaging in some pretty aggressive behaviors.'' According to James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, ``we will see a progression or expansion of that envelope until such time as we create both a substance and psychology of deterrence. And today we don't have that.'' According to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, our military enjoys ``a significant military advantage'' in every domain except for one--cyber space. As General Dempsey said, cyber ``is a level playing field. And that makes this chairman very uncomfortable.'' Efforts are currently underway to begin addressing some of our strategic shortfalls in cyber space, including the training of a 6,200-person cyber force. However, these efforts will be meaningless unless we make the tough policy decisions to establish meaningful cyber deterrence. The President must take steps now to demonstrate to our adversaries that the United States takes cyber attacks seriously and is prepared to respond. This legislation before us is one piece of that overall deterrent strategy, and it is long past time that Congress move forward on information sharing legislation. The voluntary information sharing framework in this legislation is critical to addressing these threats and ensuring that the mechanisms are in place to identify those responsible for costly and crippling cyber attacks and, ultimately, deter future attacks. Many of us have spent countless hours crafting and debating cyber legislation back to 2012. Mr. President, 2012 was the last time we attempted to pass major cyber legislation. This body has come a long way since that time. We understand that we cannot improve our cyber posture by shackling the private sector, which operates the majority of our country's critical infrastructure, with government mandates. As I argued at that time, heavyhanded regulations and government bureaucracy will do more harm than good in cyber space. The voluntary framework in this legislation represents the progress we have made in defining the role of the private sector and the role of the government in sharing threat information, defending networks, and deterring cyber attacks. This legislation also complements actions we have taken in the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, currently in conference with the House. As chairman of the Armed Services Committee, cyber security is one of my top priorities. That is why the NDAA includes a number of critical cyber provisions designed to ensure the Department of Defense has the capabilities it needs to deter aggression, defend our national security interests, and, when called upon, defeat our adversaries in cyber space. The NDAA authorizes the Secretary of Defense to develop, prepare, coordinate, and, when authorized by the President, conduct a military cyber operation in response to malicious cyber activity carried out against the United States or a United States person by a foreign power. The NDAA also authorizes $200 million for the Secretary of Defense to assess the cyber vulnerabilities of every major DOD weapons system. Finally, Congress required the President to submit an integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyber space in the fiscal year 2014 NDAA. We are still waiting on that policy, and this year's NDAA includes funding restrictions that will remain in place until it is delivered. Every day that goes by, I fear our Nation grows more vulnerable, our privacy and security are at greater risk, and our adversaries are further emboldened. These are the stakes, and that is why it is essential that we come together and pass the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act. Mr. President, I thank again my friend from Florida, who is a valued member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, for his indulgence to allow me to speak. I thank my colleague. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank my friend from Florida, Senator Nelson, for allowing me to speak for 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized immediately following me--not the Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from Florida.

Mr. McCAIN. I have the floor, I tell the Senator from Washington. This is unbelievable. It is unbelievable that this body would not move forward with a cyber bill with the situation of dire consequences and dire threats to the United States of America. Admiral Rogers, the commander of U.S. Cyber Command, told listeners at the Aspen Security Forum that ``to date there is little price to pay for engaging in some pretty aggressive behaviors.'' According to James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, ``we will see a progression or expansion of that envelope until such time as we create both the substance and psychology of deterrence. And today we don't have that.'' The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, our military enjoys ``significant military advantage'' in every domain except for one--cyber space. General Dempsey said cyber ``is a level playing field. And that makes this chairman very uncomfortable.'' The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is uncomfortable about the cyber threats to this Nation. What just took place is millions of Americans had their privacy hacked into. God only knows what the consequences of that are. The other side has decided to object to proceeding with a bill that passed through the Intelligence Committee by a vote of 14 to 1. This is disgraceful--this is disgraceful. I tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, by blocking this legislation, you are putting this Nation in danger. By blocking this legislation, you are putting this Nation in danger by not allowing the Senate of the United States to act against a very real threat to our very existence. I say this is a shameful day in the Senate. I urge the Democratic leader to come to the floor and allow us to consider amendments, move forward with this legislation because the security of the United States of America is in danger. I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. In light of recent events that have dominated the news, including the breach of millions of Americans' privileged information, which could be used in ways to harm them, do you think it is a good idea for the Senate to go out into a month-long recess without at least having debates, votes, and amendments on this issue? Does the Senator know of an issue right now that impacts the lives of everyday Americans such as this threat of cyber security attacks on the citizens of the United States?

Mr. McCAIN. I wish to just finally say to the Senator from North Carolina that I appreciate the hard work he and the Senator from California have put in on this issue. It has been said by our military leaders that right now one of the greatest vulnerabilities to national security is the possibility or likelihood of cyber attacks. The implications of that far exceed that of the invasion of someone's privacy. I thank him and the Senator from California for their hard work on this. I think it at least deserves debate and amendments, and hopefully we can pass it before we go out for the recess.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased by Senate passage today of the DRIVE Act, a long-overdue, multiyear surface transportation bill to authorize and fund our Nation's highway, bridge, and transit programs. This bill would provide the certainty needed for State and local planning organizations to set transportation priorities and begin long- term investments to modernize our Nation's aging infrastructure. This bill is also a win for the State of Arizona. Included in the DRIVE Act are critical measures, sponsored by myself and Senator Flake, that would pave the way for the establishment of the Sonoran Corridor and the future Interstate 11, I-11, ensuring Arizona has the critical infrastructure it needs to develop significant international trade routes for the Western United States. These provisions would designate the Sonoran Corridor as a future interstate to connect I-19 to I-10 south of the Tucson International Airport and extend the future I-11 through the State of Nevada to I-80 and south toward Arizona's southern border. As the population in Arizona continues to grow and innovative businesses increasingly settle in our State, we must ensure that we have the infrastructure in place to foster economic development, international trade and job creation. These two top-priority transportation projects will make Arizona a key part of an international trade route that reaches all the way to the southern border. I appreciate Chairman Inhofe's support of these important provisions, as well as Senator Flake, Governor Doug Ducey and leaders from across the State of Arizona for their strong partnership in advancing these designations that will connect Arizona businesses and communities to major domestic and international trade partners. I am proud of the bipartisan effort that went into this bill. It is unfortunate that we ultimately had to pass yet another short-term highway extension today to avoid a transportation shutdown across the country. This stop-gap measure should be the last. When we return following the August break, I urge the House to take up and pass this bill and send it to the President's desk for signature.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia, and I would ask two more questions. One is, how important is it that we make it permanent, and maybe even look towards expansion of eligibility for the card; and second of all, I know the Senator from Georgia has already discussed it, but when we have a $1.7 billion cost overrun on the construction of one VA hospital--and we see cost overruns literally everywhere throughout the VA on their construction projects--how do we fix that?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Blumenthal and also my friend from Georgia, the distinguished chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, who is ensuring we continue strong oversight and accountability at the VA. It is much needed. There are a lot of problems, but what the Senator from Georgia has done on a bipartisan basis is to continue the funding to add billions of dollars on top of the VA's request. We have approved of every single increase for funding that has been requested, and yet I am disappointed the administration is seeking to use funds originally allocated for the VA Choice card to pay for hospital and medical treatment needs. Thanks to the work, though, of the Senator from Georgia and our other colleagues, including Chairman Miller in the House of Representatives, we will ensure the VA health care will continue without any funding interruptions through the summer and into the new fiscal year. We will do this to ensure that our disabled veterans do not suffer from the VA bureaucracies' mistakes and mismanagement. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a brief colloquy with the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. McCAIN. I would ask the Senator from Georgia if he would agree the Choice card was really a major breakthrough in concept, in that at least a certain portion of our veteran population, rather than having to go a long distance in order to get VA care, would be able to go to a local provider? I wonder if the Senator from Georgia would discuss for a moment, or comment on, whether that program has been viable, whether it is accepted or not accepted by our veterans population, and whether we need to make it permanent or not.

Mr. McCAIN. In other words, from now on, if there is a new VA facility to be built, that will be supervised and constructed by the Corps of Engineers?

Mr. McCAIN. Well, I am sure it is probably a dumb question, but has anybody been held accountable? I am sure that is a stupid question.

Mr. McCAIN. I think they must have gotten some of those bureaucrats from the Pentagon. I want to thank both Senator Blumenthal and you, Mr. Chairman, for the great work you are doing. As you know, this whole scandal began in Arizona at the Phoenix VA, where allegations remain that over 50 veterans died while awaiting care. Obviously all of us have an obligation to all of our veterans, but I know my colleagues can understand the special aspects of where this whole thing began. I am very grateful, and on behalf of the veterans of my State, I thank both of you for your leadership and your commitment. I will be going back to my veterans community, and I will be having townhall meetings and meetings with them and ensuring them that at least we think we are taking measures that put us on the right track. I thank the Senator from Missouri for his patience while we engaged in this colloquy.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that would amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, RECA, by adding Mohave County, AZ, to the list of counties eligible for downwinder compensation. A similar proposal was introduced today by Congress Paul Gosar. I am hopeful this bill will help close a painful chapter for those Arizonans who were arguably the most affected by nuclear weapons testing during the Cold War. In 1990, Congress enacted the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to compensate victims or their survivors who suffered certain illnesses caused by fallout exposure ``down wind'' of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing during the 1950's and 1960's. Among other requirements, eligibility is limited to individuals who can prove their physical presence in one of several affected counties. Astonishingly, despite its close proximity to the Nevada Test Site, the original RECA law and its subsequent amendments never listed Mohave County proper as an affected area. I believe the people of Mohave County deserve to see righted this unjust policy which has obstructed their ability to qualify for compensation. I understand that several of my colleagues have proposed similar RECA amendments in previous years. I would hope that these various RECA proposals give additional consideration to an April 2005 report by the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, that assessed, among other things, whether additional geographic areas should be added to the RECA program. The NAS study revealed a much wider area of radioactive fallout then originally identified when the RECA law was first written. The report also recommended replacing the geographic area criteria with a new science-based process for determining compensation eligibility, a method similar to what's used in the Radiation Exposed-Veterans Compensation Act and the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. I believe it is worthwhile for policy makers to consider the recommendations of the NAS report. This bill is an expansion of the RECA program and thus I will be working with my colleagues to find funding offsets to ensure there is no net increase in government spending if this legislation were enacted. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that would amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, RECA, by adding Mohave County, AZ, to the list of counties eligible for downwinder compensation. A similar proposal was introduced today by Congress Paul Gosar. I am hopeful this bill will help close a painful chapter for those Arizonans who were arguably the most affected by nuclear weapons testing during the Cold War. In 1990, Congress enacted the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to compensate victims or their survivors who suffered certain illnesses caused by fallout exposure ``down wind'' of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing during the 1950's and 1960's. Among other requirements, eligibility is limited to individuals who can prove their physical presence in one of several affected counties. Astonishingly, despite its close proximity to the Nevada Test Site, the original RECA law and its subsequent amendments never listed Mohave County proper as an affected area. I believe the people of Mohave County deserve to see righted this unjust policy which has obstructed their ability to qualify for compensation. I understand that several of my colleagues have proposed similar RECA amendments in previous years. I would hope that these various RECA proposals give additional consideration to an April 2005 report by the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, that assessed, among other things, whether additional geographic areas should be added to the RECA program. The NAS study revealed a much wider area of radioactive fallout then originally identified when the RECA law was first written. The report also recommended replacing the geographic area criteria with a new science-based process for determining compensation eligibility, a method similar to what's used in the Radiation Exposed-Veterans Compensation Act and the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. I believe it is worthwhile for policy makers to consider the recommendations of the NAS report. This bill is an expansion of the RECA program and thus I will be working with my colleagues to find funding offsets to ensure there is no net increase in government spending if this legislation were enacted. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, all Americans but especially Arizonans should be concerned about the crushing wall of Federal environmental regulations that President Obama has been announcing is coming our way. Politico recently noted, ``Two years [after the President originally announced his intent to take executive action on climate change], scarcely a week goes by without the administration unveiling a new climate change initiative.'' Common among all these regulations is their complete disregard for how businesses really operate and how they will adversely affect those businesses and their consumers. According to a report recently released by the American Action Forum, just the 18 ``economically significant'' regulations the White House announced before Memorial Day will saddle the Nation's slowly recovering economy with more than $110 billion in potential cost, with billions more in unknown burdens. If left uncorrected, these regulations will unfairly impact Arizona consumers and businesses and, in the view of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, ``cause significant economic harm to our state.'' One of the most alarming of these new regulations is the Environmental Protection Agency's so-called clean water rule or waters of the United States rule--a Federal regulation of almost unprecedented scope. The EPA has claimed this rule would just let it stop construction activities that disturb small, environmentally sensitive streams and wetlands, but when you dive into the rule's 299 pages, you will find it actually expands EPA's authority to roughly 60 percent of all ``waters of the United States,'' including irrigation ditches, stock ponds, and even dry desert washes. This is bad news for Arizona agriculture and homebuilding sectors, which combined account for most of all economic activity in my State. If a farmer wants to build or repair a canal, the EPA could block it. A community that wants to build a school or a church near a dry wash will have to beg for EPA's permission. The EPA can even go after property owners if the Agency thinks water historically flowed across their land, even when there is no visible evidence. Ultimately, water is the last thing the EPA will be worried about once their clean water rule becomes effective; they will be drowning in lawsuits. Another proposed rule by the EPA--the ``Clean Power Plan rule''-- would place new limits on greenhouse gas emissions that would prevent the use of coal and result in the elimination of 36 percent of Arizona's electric power generation. Of course, the billions of dollars that would be needed to comply with the plan would be passed on to consumers. Estimates are that utility rates could increase up to 13 percent in Arizona. If you are a small business owner and you don't have the luxury to pass on these costs, this dramatic increase in your utility bill could prevent replacing old equipment or hiring new employees or otherwise expanding your business. In addition to being a job killer, this rule will impact Arizona's water supply, which in many cases is moved through the State by energy derived from coal-fired plants, negatively affecting consumers and commerce throughout the State. This rule also threatens default on hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-backed USDA rural utility service loans around the country which are critical to providing rural residents with affordable energy and reliable, good-paying jobs. Another rule, which would revise ozone regulations, may also disproportionately impact Arizona, especially her rural communities. Failing to acknowledge qualities unique to Arizona regarding ozone concentrations in the State--for example, altitude, topography, lightning, and wildfires--this rule would undermine the State's continuing attractiveness to business by creating construction restrictions, permitting delays, and reduced Federal transportation funding. So what can be done about all of this? Well, that depends. For those rules that have been finalized, we can start looking at legislatively repealing them, as a bill Senator Flake and I recently sponsored would do with the clean water rule, or we can pass resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to help bring public attention to them. For those rules that haven't been finalized yet, we can consider including riders in appropriations bills to disrupt their implementation. Madam President, we need to be very clear on what is going on here. These regulations don't represent a good-faith effort by President Obama to work with Congress to legislate transparently with care and acuity to help the States ensure the health, welfare, and safety of our citizens; rather, like the President's Executive order on immigration, they are an example of his insistence on using his ``pen and phone'' to unconstitutionally and unilaterally forge a legacy--a legacy that will, in fact, have a chilling impact on economic growth and prosperity. The fact is, after years of economic recession, the Arizona economy is showing signs of recovery. But with Arizona's growing slower than the rest of the country, with only a 1.1-percent increase in real gross State product compared to 2.2 nationwide and 65,500 fewer people working in Arizona compared to 8 years ago, Washington has to be focused on doing everything it can to unburden small business owners and promote entrepreneurialism. These regulations would do just the opposite. For these reasons, it will be important for all Arizonans and all affected Americans to make their concern and outrage heard. For Arizona, Senator Flake and I join our colleagues representing other affected States and will continue to exercise our constitutional oversight prerogative to keep the Executive in check and help educate the American people about what is coming and how it will affect all of us. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Arizona Republic's editorials on this issue that appeared yesterday and on June 30, 2015; the op-ed from me and Senator Flake in the Arizona Republic entitled ``We're standing up against regulation- happy Obama''; the two oversight letters we recently sent relevant Agency heads on the Clean Power Plan rule and the clean water rule; and the op-ed from Arizona Chamber of Commerce president Glenn Hamer in the Yuma Sun entitled ``List of examples of federal overregulation is way too long.''

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the compound motion to go to conference on H.R. 1735 be waived.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, in just a few minutes, we are going to take a vote on a motion to instruct the conferees on the National Defense Authorization Act that would then basically--if these instructions were agreed to, would actually repeal the Budget Control Act passed by the Senate. It would be a direct repudiation of what-- after many hours of debate, some amendments that were passed by the Senate and would, on an authorization bill, require budgetary and fiscal measures which are totally inappropriate. Basically, the problem that my friends on the other side of the aisle have is that they want equal reductions. They want restoration of funding for both nondefense and defense that is forced by the Budget Control Act. This legislation that is before the body, which is authorized according to the Budget Control Act--and if the instructions to the conferees were enacted, which is before the body now, that somehow we would then be able to repudiate the Budget Control Act which was passed and we would also be dealing with funding which has nothing to do with the authorization bill. So my friends on the other side of the aisle have a problem with OCO--the overseas contingency operations--but they are trying to change it on an authorization bill. I wish my dear friends would look at the rules of the Senate. If they have a problem with funding, that is what the appropriations bills are all about. I urge my colleagues to reject what is obviously an unworkable and unrealistic approach to a problem that I agree is a problem. Sequestration is harming our ability to defend this Nation. But in order to defend the Budget Act--to change the budget that was passed by a majority and now is part of what guided our appropriations bills-- that is where their problems should lie. I urge my colleagues to reject these instructions to the conferees which would basically--I do not see a way that we could possibly confer with the House after passing these kinds of instructions. So I urge a ``no'' vote on Mr. Reed's motion to instruct the conferees concerning H.R. 1735. Basically, we would have to take approximately $38 billion worth of authorization out of the authorization bill. So I urge a ``no'' vote. And I say to my friend and colleague, the Senator from Rhode Island, whom I respect and admire and whose friendship I value, on this issue we simply disagree. Madam President, I yield the floor.