John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, I object on behalf of the Judiciary Committee. This would criminalize stealing metal. It makes it a Federal offense; therefore, the Judiciary properly has jurisdiction. It would also establish civil penalties enforceable by the Attorney General. It directs review of this crime by the Federal sentencing commission. It has no tie to the national security or the National Defense Authorization Act. So I object.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would point out to the Senator from Minnesota that we started on this legislation in the committee in May. We are now well into June--many weeks. We are 2 weeks into the consideration of this legislation, and the Senator from Minnesota comes to the floor with a compelling amendment. I suggest the next time around the Senator from Minnesota raise the issue with the authorization committee and with others when the bill first comes to the floor rather than waiting 2 weeks before having a compelling interest in this very serious issue.

Mr. McCAIN. I still have the floor, I would say to the Senator from Minnesota. The rules of the Senate are that we usually don't like to be interrupted. Mr. President, we are going to embark on the McCain-Feinstein amendment, which I understand is going to be voted on at 11:30; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 that the time spent be equally divided while in a quorum call.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to, if they wish, disregard my statement with the exception of the statement by GEN David Petraeus. I don't know of a military leader who is more respected in America and throughout the world than GEN David Petraeus. I don't have to remind my colleagues that he was the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and Director of the CIA. He arguably has more experience dealing with foreign detainee issues across the U.S. Government than any other American. These are the words of GEN David Petraeus: I strongly support the extension of the provisions of the U.S. Army Field Manual that currently govern the actions of the U.S. military to all U.S. Government personnel and contractors. Our Nation has paid a high price in recent decades for the information gained by the use of techniques beyond those in the field manual, and in my view, that price far outweighed the value of the information gained through the use of techniques beyond those in the manual. I urge my colleagues to listen to the words of David Petraeus. Here is a letter I received this month from former intelligence interrogation professionals, the U.S. military, the CIA, and the FBI. Here is an excerpt from the letter they sent to me this month: As intelligence and interrogation professionals who have offered our collective voice opposing torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, we strongly encourage you to support the amendment. . . . The interrogation methods that have kept America safe for generations are sophisticated, humane, lawful and produce reliable, actionable intelligence in any interrogation scenario. To promote a return to that respected level of professionalism, there must be a single well-defined standard of conduct--consistent with our values as a nation--across all U.S. agencies to govern the detention and interrogation of people anywhere in U.S. custody. This is supported by some of our most experienced military leaders. They expressed their views in a letter I received this month, 30 of whom are retired, including a former Commandant of the Marine Corps, former commander of Centcom, former commander and chief of U.S. Army Europe--they wrote the following: This amendment not only solidifies America's stance against torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It also ensures that interrogation methods used by all U.S. personnel are professional and reflect the government's best practices. In that way, we not only ensure that these interrogations are humane and lawful, but also that they produce reliable intelligence on which we depend if we are to fight and win against the current terrorist threat. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from those individuals dated June 9, 2015.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from California have 15 minutes and I have 10 minutes and that the vote be delayed until completion of the 15 minutes and the 10 minutes.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Feinstein for her very kind words and her friendship and leadership. I hope that in return for all of this, she will send back all the water to Arizona that California has stolen from our State. My beloved former colleague, Senator Barry Goldwater, used to say that in Arizona, we had so little water that the trees chased the dogs, so we would like to get the water back from California, and I hope that can be part of the wonderful friendship we have enjoyed now for many years. I thank the Senator from California. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I yield back all time.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the fiscal year 2015 NDAA passed last year included 34 new provisions dealing with sexual assault. Commanders have barely had time to implement these provisions, let alone assess their effectiveness. The fiscal year 2014 NDAA included more than 50 individual provisions, the most comprehensive set of changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice since 1968. Cumulative, the last three NDAAs included 71 sections of law containing more than 100 unique requirements, including 16 congressional reporting requirements. This year's bill builds on that progress with 12 military justice provisions, including every proposal that was offered by Senator Gillibrand during the committee's markup of this legislation. It is true that sexual assaults have been reduced. That is a fact. That is a fact. So to somehow allege that nothing has been done--her proposal is rejected by literally every member of the military whom I know who has years of experience. We cannot remove the commanding officer from the chain of command, and that is what Senator Gillibrand's amendment and effort has been--to remove the commanding officer from responsibility--and I will steadfastly oppose it. I hope that at some point the Senator from New York would acknowledge that we took in this bill every provision that she offered during the markup of the legislation. So with respect and appreciation for Senator Gillibrand's passion and for her dedication on this issue, I respectfully disagree and urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Unanimous Consent Agreement--Order of Procedure

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture vote on the substitute amendment No. 1463 be waived; further, that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each vote in the 2:15 p.m. series.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the Vitter amendment tries to enforce a minimum number of Army brigade combat teams. It seeks to direct the U.S. Army to maintain not fewer than 32 brigade combat teams in the Regular Army and 28 in the Army National Guard. The Secretary of the Army could not reduce these until he reports to Congress and certifies impacts on operational risk to the national defense strategy and insufficient funds or appropriations. The Secretary of the Army must also report rationale for any proposed reduction of total strength in the Regular Army, National Guard, and Army Reserves. This includes an operational analysis that shows continued mission performance given a reduction and an assessment of force-mix ratio among all of those organizations. Additionally, the Secretary, with the Director of the Army, National Guard, or Chief of Army Reserve, must report to Congress at least 90 days before any possible reductions. The report must list remaining major combat units, missions, unit assignments by installation, and proposed BCTs for disestablishment--on and on and on and on. I say to the Senator from Louisiana, we don't do this. We don't tell the Army or the National Guard that they can only have a minimum of this or that and that they can't do certain things. The amendment requires the Army to report manning levels. In principle, I agree with the Senator from Louisiana. The world is less secure. We are facing many threats. We need an Army capable of securing our interests around the world. In fact, last week, decisions were made to deploy more forces to Iraq. The amendment is bad policy. The Congress shouldn't attempt to manage forces. That is the job of the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff. Our job is to authorize and fund. The key is giving Army leadership the flexibility to manage the total Army force given the planned drawdown. In fiscal year 2016, the Army end strength is being reduced and funding is planned to be adjusted accordingly. The cost to maintain the total Army at 490,000 for 1 year is about $2.4 billion. Of course, the Senator's amendment does not have any indication where that $2.4 billion would come from. If enacted, the amendment could result in a Regular Army of ``tiered readiness.'' The Army would have a force of 490,000 with a budget for 475,000. We don't want a ``hollow Army'' as we had in the 1970s. So I urge my colleague from Louisiana, the sponsor of this amendment, to devote his energies and efforts to the repeal of sequestration. That is what is forcing these decisions to be made by the Army, which, in my view and the view of our military leaders, is putting the lives of the men and women at greater risk.

Mr. McCAIN. I wish to finish my statement first, and I appreciate that. So I oppose the amendment on the fact that we do not have the funding here to maintain the Army at the level that both he and I would prefer. If we do repeal sequestration, then there will be sufficient funding for maintaining the Army, the National Guard, and the Army Reserves at the level the Senator from Louisiana strongly advocates and I also advocate. I will be glad to respond to a question from the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I respond to my friend to say that what we have authorized, as the Senator from Louisiana clearly described, is what the services have said they need to do their mission--and based on their requirements, not the view of what my requirements are. So I think the Senator's proposal is very different from what he described. Again, there is sufficient funding for everything we have authorized in the bill. What this amendment is authorizing in the bill would require an additional $2.4 billion to be authorized out of the budget that was set by the Budget Committee, which would then mean reductions in other areas, as I am sure the Senator appreciates, that we authorized to the budget numbers as a result of the Budget Committee's allocation for defense. So I thank the Senator from Louisiana for his continued support of the men and women in the military, especially the bases in Louisiana as well as around the world. He is an advocate for the men and women who are serving, and I appreciate his continued dedication to their welfare and benefit. We just have an honest disagreement on whether this amendment is appropriate in our management of the armed services. I thank the Senator. We have a disagreement on the amendment. We will vote on it, as he requested. He requested not having a tabling motion. He asked if we could consider his amendment, if we could have it not be a tabling motion, and I am glad to accommodate the Senator. With that, I yield the floor, and I ask unanimous consent to start the vote now.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator allow me to propound a unanimous consent request?

Mr. McCAIN. Please proceed.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask to modify that unanimous consent request by adding further that no second-degree amendments be in order to the Ernst or Gillibrand amendments.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow, June 16, notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the Senate vote in relation to the McCain-Feinstein amendment No. 1889, with no second-degree amendments in order to the McCain-Feinstein amendment prior to the vote; further, that at 2:15 p.m., the Senate vote in relation to the Ernst amendment No. 1549, followed by a vote on the Gillibrand amendment No. 1578, as under the previous order, followed by the cloture vote with respect to the McCain substitute amendment No. 1463.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to express my appreciation to the Senator from Illinois for his passion, for his commitment, for his advocacy for people who sometimes do not have a voice here in the U.S. Senate. I congratulate him, and I express my heartfelt appreciation for his efforts on behalf of people who are unable to speak for themselves. I thank the Senator from Illinois.