John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. This business of secret backroom dealmaking, that is what conferences are about, and conference results are subject to a vote of both Houses as to the conference result.

Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to yield for a question.

Mr. McCAIN. It is my understanding since the conference is open to the public, it will also be broadcast on C-SPAN so all the American people can watch the deliberations. I wonder, why would the Senator from Utah say it is a backroom, closed-door deal when, in fact--doesn't the Senator from Utah know this conference is open to the public and seen by everybody? I mean, for the Senator from Utah to say this is a backroom, closed- door deal, he is either directly misleading or my colleague has no knowledge of how the budget conference works. I don't know which one it is, and I don't know which one is worse. All I can say is we know, one, even if we had a restriction on allowing raising of the debt limit, it would not matter because it is not legislation that would be signed by the President of the United States--no matter what the budget conferees did. We also know the budget conferees--I will admit, unlike many--meet in open session with C-SPAN so the American people are able to observe it. So I at least hope the Senator from Utah would withdraw his comment that this is a backroom, closed-door deal because it is not. Those are fundamental facts. Again, it is disappointing that we are spending this time when we should be on the farm bill. The Senator from California and I have an important amendment to remove a lot of the corruption that is in that bill. I will yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator admit it is not a deal that is made behind closed doors? Does the Senator admit that? Does the Senator admit he misspoke on that issue? It is not behind closed doors.

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

Mr. McCAIN. In the case of the appointment of conferees, will that be open to the public on C-SPAN or any other media coverage that wishes to come in the room?

Mr. McCAIN. How many amendments were considered?

Mr. McCAIN. How many were voted on?

Mr. McCAIN. But there was not one amendment on the debt ceiling?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we have been through this quite a bit, but, again, I wish to respond by saying that if it were part of the budget resolution, it would have no effect in law. So one has to then question what the knowledge of those who are advocating this is about fundamental procedures. Second of all, if this is a prerequisite, then for every conference we send, Senators will be allowed, according to this precedent, to set certain parameters of those conferences, which is a procedure we use now--instructions to conferees. We are willing to have votes on instructions to conferees on any issue any Senator feels necessary for the conferees to do their job.

Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to.

Mr. McCAIN. Thank God.

Mr. McCAIN. Well, I think that is a danger and I think it is a significant danger if a number of Senators, either large or small, should insist that certain conditions be imposed unilaterally without motions to instruct. That is what we have the motions to instruct for. It is not that we don't want the conferees to do certain things, but we have motions to instruct. That is the regular order of how we do business. The Senators who are here who say the debt ceiling should not be part of any negotiations, fine. Let's have a vote, motions to instruct the conferees. It has been my experience that the conferees have stuck with the instructions that were voted on by the majority of the Senate. So this is kind of a sad time because here we are debating as to whether we should allow the debt limit to be part of negotiations, which would have no meaning in law whatsoever because it is not signed by the President. We have pressing issues. The Senator from California and I have an issue that has to do with tobacco and the health of our kids that we would like to have considered before the Senate. We could be debating on the instructions to the conferees. We could be doing so many things, and we are not. We are not doing those things. Finally, I would again share my experience with my colleagues. I have lost a lot more times than I have won, but I have come to the floor of the Senate using the rules of the Senate and made the argument on those things I believe in and stand for. I have been passionate on those issues, and sometimes I have irritated my colleagues, but at least I have had my say. But then after I have had my say, there have been votes, and the body has decided, and the body has decided whether I was right or wrong. When I have been voted down, I have gone back on those issues and I have tried to convince my colleagues of the rightness of my position, rather than, as with the gun bill, after people were slaughtered in Newtown, CT, my colleagues didn't even want to debate the issue of gun control and what we should do about that. That is not how the Senate should function. The Senate is supposed to debate and discuss and give our passionate appeals and beliefs and then put it to the will of the body. That is the protection of the individual Senator, not to just say we are not going to do anything. That is not the way the American people want us to act. And to throw in all this stuff about the debt and the deficit--I will match my record on opposing the debt and the deficit against certainly my colleagues here. But that is not the point. The point is, will this deliberative body, whether it is the greatest in the world or the worst in the world, go ahead and decide on this issue so we can have a budget so we can at least tell the American people we are going to do what we haven't done for 4 years and what every family in America sooner or later has to do, and that is to have a budget. So, as I say, we have gone on too long. The farm bill is of the utmost importance, and the Senator from California and I have amendments on it. I hope my colleagues will realize the best way to get their point of view over and sway the opinion of our colleagues and the American people is to engage in honest and open debate, as the Senate does, instruct the conferees, let them go to conference in an open--not closed-door, not behind closed doors, not backroom--process that is the procedure employed by the Budget Committee in conference. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise again in regret. The normal regular order of this body after both sides of the Capitol have agreed on a budget is to meet and that we have a proper process to instruct conferees to have a budget. A motion to appoint conferees to be bound by a requirement, no matter how worthy it is, is not the way the regular order functions in this body, and that is a fact. For 4 years I sat here and beat up on the majority leader for his failure to bring a budget to the floor of this Senate. We brought a budget to the floor. We spent many hours on all kinds of amendments, and now we can't go to conference unless we agree not to raise the debt limit. Does my colleague from Florida believe the House of Representatives, dominated by Republicans, is going to raise the debt limit? Does my colleague from Florida believe any conferees who are appointed, where we have to place certain restrictions on those conferees, that would apply to the other body as well? I don't think so. I don't think that is the way this body is supposed to function. We are in a gridlock. Here we are, 4 years without a budget. We finally get a budget, we stay up all night, and because somebody doesn't want to raise the debt limit we are not going to go to conference. That is not how this body should function. The American people deserve better. They deserve a budget. Every family in America has to live on a budget. Here we are objecting because there is a concern about raising the debt limit. All I can say to my friend from Florida is that the American people don't like it, and I don't like it. Most of his colleagues and the Republicans in this Senate don't like it that we are blocking budget conferees from going forward and doing what conferees are supposed to do. I would imagine the majority leader will continue to raise this motion to move forward. By the way, it is the regular order to have motions to instruct the conferees. A motion to instruct the conferees on the debt limit should be in order. A motion to instruct relative to taxes and revenue should be in order. That is the regular order to do it. It is not the regular order to demand certain conditions on the conferees. We instruct the conferees. The conferees are appointed by both the majority and Republican leader, and we place our confidence in those conferees to reflect the will of the majority. I have to say I am disappointed in the Senator from Florida, in his objection and his demand that we do something that is not in the regular order. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I will yield to the Senator from Tennessee in just 1 second. The Senator from Florida is saying, if he has an issue he feels strongly about, then that has to be included in any conference that is convened over any bill that is passed by the Senate, the House, and goes to conference. That is not a precedent I believe should be established in the Senate. I think I share the concern of the Senator from Florida about the debt and the deficit. I will match my record against anybody's as far as trying to eliminate the debt and the deficit, including that of the Senator from Florida. We are about to establish a precedent that if any conferees are appointed on bills that are passed by the House and the Senate, that we are free then to put certain restrictions on those conferees. If the Senator from Florida believes that is the right way this body should function, then I would suggest to him that most people would disagree with this kind of violation of the regular order.

Mr. McCAIN. And deservedly so.

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask my friend from Illinois, isn't that what the regular order is, that makes it perfectly applicable, if we instruct the conferees, which is what we are asking for in this unanimous consent agreement?

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

Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it a little bizarre, this whole exercise we are going through, when some of us are asking to go to conference with a body that is dominated by the Members of our own party? We don't have, apparently, enough confidence the majority of the conference appointed by the other side of the Capitol will be a majority of Republicans and not Democrats? Isn't that a little bizarre? And really, what we are talking about here, I will be very honest with my colleague from Illinois, is a minority within a minority. Because the majority of my colleagues in the Senate on this side of the aisle, with motions to instruct the conferees, want to move forward and appoint these conferees and do what every American family has to do in America and that is to have a budget.

Mr. McCAIN. I would ask my friend again, basically what we are saying here on this side of the aisle is that we don't trust our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol who are, in the majority, Republicans. I guess that is the lesson that can be learned here. But far more importantly than that--far more importantly than that-- in a recent poll I saw, 16 percent of the American people approve of Congress. When I go home and have townhall meetings and I say: You know what, my friends, we don't even have a budget. We can't even agree, Republicans and Democrats--Republicans and Republicans in this case--to have a budget, the same as every American family does. Does that contribute to the approval and the respect the people of this country have for us? The answer is obviously no. So I urge my colleagues again, let's put some confidence in, if not the conferees appointed here, the conferees who will be appointed on the other side of the Capitol who are from our party, who are fiscal conservatives just as we are, instead of this blocking by what I assure my colleagues--all three of them here--is a minority of the minority of Republicans in the Senate who do not want to move forward with a budget that we spent so many hours and so much effort in achieving. Do not block it from going forward.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair, and I hope the Chair will discipline this disrespect that is being displayed because of my advanced age. This would never have happened in the Coolidge administration, in which I first served. I thank the Senator. I also thank my dear friend Lindsey Graham for bringing this important resolution to the Senate. Resolutions happen all the time. This is a very important one. It wouldn't have happened without the leadership and support of the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I would like to thank him for his continued leadership, including the passage of the resolution that was passed through the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday concerning the situation in Syria. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record three articles that are of importance for our colleagues. One is from the Washington Post: ``Iran paves over suspected nuclear testing site despite U.N. protests.'' The second is another Washington Post article, by the Associated Press: ``Iran expands nuke technology for program that could be used to make weapons.'' Of interest is another one, also from the Washington Post: ``Iranian soldiers fighting for Assad in Syria, says State Department official.''

Mr. McCAIN. I join with 90 Members of the Senate to support this resolution. This resolution has extraordinary bipartisan support. The Senate will send a clear and unequivocal message to the regime in Tehran, and that is this: The United States will not allow you to get a nuclear weapons capability. The dangers of a nuclear Iran cannot be denied, diminished, or dismissed. We must continue to ratchet up the pressure through sanctions, as this resolution suggests. At the end of the day, sanctions are a means to an end, not an end unto themselves. Unfortunately, despite the unprecedented international sanctions that have been put in place, Iran is today closer to a nuclear weapons capacity than ever before, and the facts speak for themselves. In January 2009, according to the IAEA, the Iranians had approximately 1,000 kilograms of uranium enriched to 3.5 percent. Today they have more than 8,000 kilograms. In January 2009 Iran had not enriched to 20 percent. Today the IAEA reported that Iran has produced 324 kilograms of 20 percent-enriched uranium. That is 44 kilograms more than 3 months ago. It means they are moving unabated and unhindered toward the development of a nuclear weapon, and they continue to deny IAEA inspectors entry into nuclear facilities while the centrifuges continue to increase dramatically. Just a few hours ago, the IAEA issued a report that says Iran has installed close to 700 high-tech centrifuges, which will exponentially increase the speed with which Iran will be able to enrich uranium. Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability cannot be divorced from its other destabilizing actions. The threat from Iran is comprehensive. It includes ongoing threats against Israel and other allied Arab governments across the region, it includes a decades-long campaign of unconventional warfare, and it includes Iran's ongoing role as the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Let's not forget that Iran has bolstered violent extremist groups such as Hezbollah and Shiite militias in Iraq who are responsible for the murders of hundreds of young American forces and innocent civilians or that senior leaders of the Quds Force were implicated in a terrorist plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the United States on U.S. soil. The Iranian regime continues to undertake its full-fledged campaign of brutality to keep Bashar al-Asad in power in Syria. Senior Iranian officials are advising and assisting the Syrian military with intelligence support and weapons. They have undertaken, together with Hezbollah, a large-scale training effort of as many as 50,000 militiamen. As today's Washington Post makes clear, Iranian soldiers are fighting on the ground in Syria, supporting the regime as it massacres its civilians. I ask whether this is in America's national security interest. The threat in Iran is more deadly and more serious than any I have seen in my lifetime. I don't think this threat will be fully resolved until a very different set of leaders is in power in Tehran and until we see an Iranian Government that reflects the will of the Iranian people. I am confident that the current regime that rules Iran will not last forever for the simple reason that the Iranian people want the same freedoms and rights as people elsewhere. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. Again, I thank the Senator from South Carolina Mr. Graham for his hard work on this resolution for a change.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I will reserve the right to object to the modification, and I will object in just a moment. I would like to point out to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that for 4 years--for 4 years--we complained about the fact that the majority leader, whom I see on the floor, refused to bring a budget to the floor of the Senate. Then, in what most of us believe was a proud moment--I thought it was a pretty tiring experience at my age, voting all night--we approved or disapproved of 70 meaningless amendments. The fact is, we did a budget. All of us patted ourselves on the back, and we were so proud that we did the budget. By golly, now we will move with the House of Representatives and we will have a budget and, hopefully, at least begin negotiations with the House of Representatives, in which the majority is Republicans--not Democrats, Republicans. We would decide we were going to do that. Now we are going to, according to the objection and the unanimous consent that was just asked for, in an unprecedented way, put restrictions on the conferees. The way we usually do it is what I am about to do; that is, we instruct the conferees. We don't require the conferees because that is why we appoint conferees, and that is why we approve or disapprove of the result of that conference. That is how our laws are made, and that is how our budgets are made. What do we keep doing? What do we on my side of the aisle keep doing? We don't want a budget unless we put requirements on the conferees that are absolutely out of line and unprecedented. All I say to my colleagues is, can't we, after all those hours--I forget what hour in the morning it was--after all those votes, after all that debate and all that discussion, we came up with a budget and now we will not go to conference, why is that? I will object to the modification the Senator from Kentucky just asked for in a moment, but I would first ask consent that the original request by the Senator from Washington include two motions: to instruct the conferees, one related to the debt limit, and one related to taxes. That is the way we should do business in the Senate. It is instructions to the conferees. The Senator from Washington may not like those instructions, but the fact is that is the way we do business, not require the conferees to take certain measures. If my colleagues on this side of the aisle think we are helping our cause as fiscal conservatives by blocking going to a conference on the budget--which every family in America has to be on because of certain requirements they demand--then we are not helping ourselves with the American people at all. I will object to the modification proposed by the Senator from Kentucky. I would first ask consent that the original request by the Senator from Washington include two motions to instruct the conferees: one related to the debt limit and one related to taxes.