John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. We wish to make sure our position is very clear. We are not saying the subject should be indefinitely detained by the U.S. military or tried in a military tribunal. The suspect is a U.S. citizen and must be treated accordingly, and he will be. The tragic events we saw in Boston bring home again that this fight is far from over. I don't know if these young men were motivated by the information they received, whether it was overseas or whether it was due to the Internet and various influences there. What we do know is that while living in this country, they changed from apparently normal young people into terrorists who were willing to do anything to take the lives of their fellow American citizens. The battlefield is the United States of America. Anyone who doesn't believe this ignores the events from which we are recovering. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina, who has probably been more widely quoted than I have, and request that he clear up this exact situation we are calling for which, frankly, is being portrayed inaccurately in a great deal of the media.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Hampshire be included in the colloquy.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask my colleague for a comment on the issue of whether the United States of America is a battlefield. Does my colleague agree with the quote, ``The battlefield coming to America or acknowledging that is an enormous mistake''?

Mr. McCAIN. Finally, again, if there were information of an imminent attack, such as the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania that might have been headed for the Capitol, we would take whatever measures necessary to prevent it from happening. To somehow say we would not use every capability in our arsenal to prevent that goes back again to this fundamental error, fundamental misconception about the nature of radical extremists where the battlefield clearly is the United States, and we should be most prepared. And, by the way, if there is some good news that came out of Boston, it was that some of the measures that had been taken since 9/11 contributed significantly to our ability to track down and eliminate this threat far more rapidly than we would have prior to 9/11.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, given the importance of this debate, I believe it is important for me to explain why I am supporting amendment No. 715, offered by Senators Manchin and Toomey, to S. 649, the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013. Like all Americans, my heart goes out to the people of Newtown, Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado; Tucson, Arizona, and all other cities and towns impacted by senseless gun violence. These tragic events are impossible to fully comprehend unless you were there and extremely difficult to relate to unless you experience the effects personally. The rest of us are left with more questions than answers, and differing--albeit well-intentioned--solutions designed to preserve our way of life while doing our best to ensure these horrible events are less likely tomorrow. As everyone is aware, in January of 2011, the citizens of my home State--as well as people around the country and world--were shocked and horrified by the senseless violence of a severely disturbed young man with a gun. Six people were killed and 13 injured. One of those victims was a bright young Congressional staffer named Gabe Zimmerman, who was highly regarded by his colleagues and had a future filled only with promise. Yesterday, here in the Capitol at a room dedication for Gabe Zimmerman, we were provided with a very real portrait of a man who was doing what he loved, serving the people of Arizona, when his life was tragically cut short. I think his father's comments are worth repeating today. Ross Zimmerman, Gabe's father, said: An echo of Gabriel will persist, perhaps for centuries. It isn't worth the loss, but the echo is good and true. . . . I ask that you and our descendents take inspiration from my son's echo as you conduct the affairs of this Congress and the affairs of this nation. Another life impacted by those tragic events is that of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Her life, while still filled with great promise, was unalterably changed that fateful day. Congresswoman Giffords, and her loving husband Captain Mark Kelly--who are both with us here in Washington today to witness this debate--reflect the determination of the American spirit and are beautiful examples of how good really does triumph over evil. Gabby, Mark and the countless other examples of heroism and resilience that America witnessed in Tucson, Aurora, Newtown and elsewhere around the Nation, are clear reminders of why we are all here serving, and the gravity of the issues we are asked to address. Their presence here today further reminds us that we are here to serve a cause greater than our own self-interest. There is nothing like looking in the eyes of a still-grieving parent who has just lost a young son or daughter to remind you of that fact. For over three decades in Congress, I have built as strong a record as anyone in this body in defending the Second Amendment. I have consistently opposed the efforts of anti-gun activists to ban guns and ammunition, staunchly defending the Constitutional rights that Arizonans hold dear. I have voted against assault weapons bans because I believed they would not work and opposed efforts to cripple firearms manufacturers by making them liable for the acts of violent criminals. I have proudly lent my signature to Supreme Court briefs defending an individual's right to bear arms. In my view, the wisdom of our Framers' inclusion of the right to bear arms is self-evident. And as an Arizonan, I understand the significance of gun ownership to the people of the West, whether for self-defense, sport, or simple ownership. Just as I have long defended the Second Amendment to the Constitution, I have also long believed that it is perfectly reasonable to use available tools to conduct limited background checks, as this amendment prescribes, to help ensure that felons and the mentally-ill do not obtain guns they should not possess. In my view, such background checks are not overly burdensome or unconstitutional. Is this a perfect solution? No. Would it prevent all future acts of gun violence? Of course not. Would it have prevented the most recent acts of gun violence? In all likelihood, no. But, it is reasonable and it is constitutional. I approach the issue of gun rights with profound respect for our Constitution, and the freedoms and rights that it bestows on each and every one of us. I am also guided by a firm commitment that we should do everything we can, within the bounds of the Constitution and the principles of individual rights and federalism on which it is based, to stem the rising tide of gun violence in this country. In this instance, neither the United States Supreme Court nor the lower Federal courts have held that restrictions on possession for certain classes of individuals violate the Second Amendment. In Heller v. District of Columbia, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to a well-armed militia. In his Majority opinion, Justice Scalia observed: Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. In this instance, I agree with Justice Scalia that a background check system is not a restriction of the Second Amendment right to keep arms. The issue is plain to me because a background check system only seeks to ensure that sellers of firearms do not transfer guns to a prohibited class of owners. Restrictions on ownership by certain classes of people have existed in federal law for 45 years and have not been constitutionally invalidated by the courts. In addition to Constitutional concerns, many have expressed concerns about the establishment of a national gun registry. If this amendment would establish such a registry, I would oppose it. But, it does not. In fact, the amendment reinforces the existing Federal ban of a national firearms registry. The amendment explicitly states, ``Nothing in this title, or any amendment made by this title, shall be construed to allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a Federal firearms registry.'' But, the amendment does not stop there. It would also provide for a harsh penalty of 15 years for any person who attempts to create a registry and re-affirms that any regulations issued by the Department of Justice to ensure criminals and the mentally ill do not obtain firearms cannot create a firearms registry. Mr. President, every once in a while I have seen some acts of political courage and quite often we praise each other and ourselves, directly or indirectly, for the positions we take and the votes we pass. I wish to take a moment and express my appreciation to the two sponsors of this amendment, Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey. Both come from States where there are avid and dedicated and legitimate gun rights advocates. It would have been easier for both Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey to ignore this situation and not reach across the aisle to each other to see if we could come up with what I think most Americans--in fact, I have seen polls indicating that 80 percent of the American people--support, reasonable background checks that do not infringe on the constitutional rights of our citizens. I congratulate both Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey for taking this position. You may not win today, I say to my two colleagues, but I will say that you did the right thing. You did the right thing. It has been my experience, as a Senator in this body for some years who has not always done the right thing, that doing the right thing is always a reward in itself. Sooner or later this country will take up this issue and it will take up the mentally ill issue, and I hope it will take up Hollywood violence, and I hope it will take up those programs that may incite young people to go out and want to acquire a weapon and use it. But what they have tried to do today I think is an act that should be appreciated by those of us who, many times, avoid taking the tough decisions. I think they are an example to all of us. I yield.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague. Amendment No. 730

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I honor an exceptional warrior. After a lifetime of service to our Nation, Gen. John R. Allen is retiring from the U.S. Marine Corps. On this occasion I believe it is fitting to recognize General Allen's years of uniformed service to our Nation. The general was commissioned a second lieutenant following graduation from the Naval Academy with the class of 1976. He has led at every level from platoon to theater command, including being the first Marine Commandant of the U.S. Naval Academy. He spent 2 years in Iraq's Anbar province, where he led an effort to reach out to Sunni tribal leaders to try to persuade them to stand against al-Qaida militants--a shift that helped turn the course of the war in western Iraq. And during his recent command in Afghanistan, which he proclaimed to be ``the honor of a lifetime,'' he spent 19 months winding down America's longest war while strengthening Afghanistan's military to fight insurgency. General Allen's record of service is remarkable and highly decorated. He has distinguished himself in every aspect from graduating with academic honors to receiving some of the highest military awards of the U.S. and foreign armed forces. However, he recognizes the most important distinction, and that is his family. In the last decade he has spent plenty of time away from his family in service to our Nation. He said that his family had not vacationed since his two adult daughters were young. His service and sacrifice will truly be missed by a grateful nation, and we hope that he gets that vacation he so clearly deserves and more. Our Nation will feel the loss of this distinguished officer, warrior and patriot; however, I have the utmost respect for his decision to put his family first. I join many members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in expressing my respect and gratitude to General Allen for his outstanding service to our Nation. I wish him and his wife Kathy ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I honor an exceptional warrior. After a lifetime of service to our Nation, GEN Carter F. Ham is retiring from the U.S. Army and his current position as Commander of the U.S. Africa Command. On this occasion I believe it is fitting to recognize General Ham's years of uniformed service to our Nation. General Ham has served and led at all levels in the Army. He began his career as an enlisted infantryman in the 82nd Airborne Division and he retires as a theater level commander. He was commissioned as a second lieutenant through the Reserve Officers' Training Corps in the Infantry as a Distinguished Military Graduate of John Carroll University in Cleveland, OH in 1976. General Ham's distinguished military service has taken him all over the United States, Italy and Germany. Prior to his current command he served as the commanding general of U.S. Army Europe. During these last 24 months as Commander, U.S. Africa Command, he has led combat operations to oust a tyrant, coordinated economic and infrastructural development programs to improve conditions on the ground, and orchestrated international security cooperation activities aimed at strengthening the abilities of American and African forces to deal with the range of complex challenges facing the continent. These were no small tasks and all the while he continued to make the well- being of our service men and women his highest priority. I can think of no better leader to have had carrying the guidon! Our Nation and our international partners will feel the loss of this distinguished soldier and statesman. I join many members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in expressing my respect and gratitude to General Ham for his outstanding service to our Nation. The strength of our Nation is our Army; the strength of our Army is our soldiers. Thank you, General Ham, for your service as a soldier and general, and for keeping our Nation Army Strong! I wish him and his wife Christi ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I honor an exceptional warrior and scholar. After a lifetime of service to our Nation, Gen. James N. Mattis is retiring from the U.S. Marine Corps and his current position as Commander of the United States Central Command. On this occasion I believe it is fitting to recognize General Mattis' 41 years of uniformed service to our Nation. The general was commissioned a second lieutenant on January 1, 1972. He has served in every major combat operation of his era and led at every level from platoon to theater command. Upon promotion to brigadier general, he commanded first the 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade and then Task Force 58, during Operation Enduring Freedom in southern Afghanistan. As a major general, he commanded the 1st Marine Division during the initial attack and subsequent stability operations in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom. General Mattis led marines into Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003--the defining conflicts of our age. General Mattis is well known for his dedication and intellect. When selected to command the U.S. Central Command, then Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, called him ``one of the military's most innovative and iconoclastic thinkers.'' He has proved to be that and more. General Mattis is known to carry books on philosophy with him on every combat mission. He is said to have a personal library of over 6,000 books that he takes with him to every new command. Even more important than his intellect and bravery, is his ability to connect with and lead our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. In March 2003, he wrote a letter to all forces under his command, telling them to ``engage your brain before you engage your weapon.'' I have had the pleasure of meeting those under his command and am always impressed by the respect and favor he carries amongst them. I most respect General Mattis' willingness to speak truth to power. His candor is a facet of a professionalism that has been exacted over a lifetime and exercised during a most impressive military career. Thoughtful leaders throughout government will feel his absence. I join many past and present members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in my gratitude to General Mattis for his outstanding leadership and his unwavering support of servicemembers. General James Mattis' service has evinced the meaning of the words ``Semper Fidelis.'' I wish him ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for years many of the largest U.S. multinational corporations have been exploiting offshore tax haven loopholes in the U.S. Tax Code to avoid paying billions in U.S. corporate income tax. According to a recent Bloomberg report analyzing publicly available U.S. corporate financial data, ``Eighty-three U.S. companies have stockpiled $1.43 trillion in untaxed profits in foreign countries.'' According to the same report, ``THE six biggest U.S. drug-makers avoided paying $7.05 billion in U.S. taxes last year by shifting their profits overseas,'' nearly doubling ``the amount they saved using the same strategy 10 years earlier.'' It is time for Congress to close the special interest loopholes that allow sophisticated multinational corporations to defer U.S. income tax through various foreign tax sheltering techniques and offshore tax havens. Senator Levin's amendment No. 430 supports legislation to end the abuse of offshore tax shelters. I am cosponsoring this amendment to begin the process of closing the egregious loopholes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the 70th anniversary of the commissioning of Naval Air Station, NAS, Patuxent River. On April 1, 1943 the base was commissioned and the Navy Department issued the following press release: ``Naval Air Station, Patuxent, situated on a 6,500-acre tract at Cedar Point, Maryland, was commissioned today with Rear Admiral John S. McCain, U.S.N., Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics; Rear Admiral F. L. Reichmuth, U.S.N., Commandant of the Potomac River Naval Command, and Representative Landsdale G. Sasscer of Maryland speaking at the commissioning exercises. The commissioning address was made by Rear Admiral Reichmuth who turned the situation over to Commander William T. Rassieur, U.S.N., of 1429 South Westmoreland Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Naval Air Station, Patuxent, will be one of the finest and largest Navy aviation establishments in the East when construction work is completed. It will combine and concentrate flying and operating aspects of experimental work previously conducted at Naval Air Station, Anacostia, and Norfolk, and at the Naval Aircraft Factory, Philadelphia. It will serve also as the East Coast terminal for Naval Air Transport Service, now located at Norfolk. The new station is 60 airline miles southeast of Washington, D.C. Six thousand people have been employed constructing the station, beginning work on March 1, 1942. Facilities for both land and seaplanes have been installed, while docks also have been constructed for vessels which will handle freight in connection with activities of the air transport unit. In addition to seaplane ramps, the field has three runways for land plane. The largest is 10,000 feet in length and 500 feet wide, while the remaining two are 6,000 feet long and 300 feet wide. Four hangars for all types of planes are among the 45 buildings of the station. When fully staffed the station will have several thousand officers and men.'' Mr. President, as noted earlier in the Navy's press release, my Grandfather then Rear Admiral McCain, was a speaker at the commissioning in 1943. In his speech he said, ``I have every reason to expect that under your expert guidance this work will be done more rapidly and more efficiently, and that it will rapidly increase in scope and its effectiveness, as it must do for naval aviation to meet its present problems and to hold its proper place as an outstanding major air service of the world.'' Mr. President, today NAS Patuxent River, commonly referred to as Pax River, hosts over 17,000 people, including active-duty servicemembers, civil-service employees, defense contractor employees, and military dependents. NAS Patuxent River is home to the Naval Air Systems Command, NAVAIR, Headquarters, Air Test Wing Atlantic, U.S. Naval Test Pilot School, Scientific Development Squadron 1, Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 20, Rotary Wing Test Squadron 21, and Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23. For nearly 70 years, the dedicated men and women of NAS Pax River have made the impossible possible, turning theory into experiment and experiment into operational capability. The dedicated and skilled workforce of NAS Patuxent River has made innumerable contributions to the aerospace industry, the Naval Aviation Enterprise, and the economic and national security of the United States. Their attention to detail is directly reflected in the record of excellence of United States Naval Aviation. During both war and peace their meticulous and exacting work to support the defense of our Nation has continued, ensuring, as my grandfather expected, that naval aviation meets its present problems and holds its proper place as an outstanding major air service of the world. While the historic sites, natural resources, and technology contained within its gates make it a unique destination; it is undoubtedly the people of Naval Air Station Patuxent River and their distinguished service that make it an irreplaceable National asset. On April 1, 2013, they will celebrate the 70th anniversary of the base commissioning. In recognition of this major milestone I wish them continued success in their future endeavors.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. It is disgraceful. I see that my colleague from Texas is waiting to talk. This is absolutely unbelievable. All of this long list of billions of dollars of spending can only be considered as how obscene it is by listening to what the impacts of sequester have already been on the men and women in the military. Sequester so far canceled four brigade exercises of training of the Army--that has been canceled. It reduces the base operations, the normal day-to-day operations of the base, by 30 percent; cancels half a year of helicopter and ground vehicle depot maintenance; stops postwar repair of 1,300 vehicles and 17,000 weapons. It reduces the readiness of the Army's nondeploying brigades and stops tuition assistance for all Active-Duty and Reserve men and women in the Army. In the Navy, it cancels several submarine deployments; reduces flying hours on deployed carriers in the Middle East by 55 percent--and believe me, my friends, unless they are able to operate and train, they are not safe and they are not capable. It reduces the western Pacific deployed operations by 35 percent; nondeployed Pacific ships lose 40 percent of their steaming days; reduces Middle East, Atlantic, and Mediterranean ballistic missile defense patrols. It shuts down all flying of four of our nine carrier air wings--that has been shut down 9 to 12 months. It will take 9 to 12 months to restore normal readiness at two to three times the cost. It cuts all major exercises that are going on and defers emergent repairs; the USS Truman deployment to the Middle East delayed indefinitely; the Eisenhower carrier deployment extended indefinitely; the USS Nimitz and Bush carrier strike force will not be ready for scheduled 2013 deployments. The Air Force--likely to prevent the Air Force's ability to achieve the 2017 goal of being fully auditable; over 420 projects at 140 installations across the Air Force are canceled; affects runway repairs and critical sustainment projects; delays planned acquisition of satellites and aircraft; reduces flying hours for cargo, fighter, and bomber aircraft. In the Marine Corps, the Marine Corps is unable to complete the rebalancing of Marine Corps forces to the Asia Pacific region. It will cause 55 percent of the U.S. Marine Corps aviation squad to fall below ready-to-deploy status. Over half of the aviation squadrons in the U.S. Marine Corps are not ready to deploy. The U.S. Marine Corps will not be able to accomplish planned reset of equipment returning from overseas. Depot-level maintenance will be reduced, delaying reset ability by 18 months and reducing readiness of nondeployed forces. Facilities will be funded at 71 percent of the requirement. Most important--maybe Members of Congress do not have a lot of credibility. Maybe that is understandable. I will leave that up to the American people to judge. I do think we respect the Commandant of the Marine Corps and what he had to say. I repeat: By the end of this year, more than 50 percent of my combat units will be below minimum acceptable levels of readiness for deployment to combat. Over the weekend, there was a gathering in our Nation's Washington, DC, area of a group of our conservative Americans and members of the Republican Party, and references were made to people who were too old and moss-covered, that we need new and fresh individuals and ideas and thoughts. I agree with all of those--every bit of those recommendations and comments that were made. But there is a little bit of benefit of having been around for a while. My friends, I will tell you right now, I have seen this movie before. I saw it after the Vietnam war. When the Vietnam war was over, Americans were war-weary. We had been driven apart in a way that was almost unprecedented in our history--certainly maybe as far back as our Civil War. America was torn apart. The first casualty of that was our military. Our military was cut and cut and cut, to the point where, in 1979, I believe it was, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army came before Congress and testified. It was kind of a seminal moment. He told the Congress and the American people that we had a ``hollow Army'' that would be unable to defend this Nation adequately. It also happened to coincide with when a group of brave Americans were being held hostage in the Embassy in Tehran, made famous by a fantastic movie called ``Argo.'' Along came a guy named Ronald Reagan who promised that we would restore our military, that we would restore our capability, that we would make America the leader in the world again, and a simple phrase called ``peace through strength.'' I want to tell you what we are doing with this sequestration. What we are doing with this sequestration is an exact replay of what we did after the Vietnam war. I understand that the American people are war- weary. I understand that there are savings that can be made--large savings made in our defense spending. But to do it like this puts the security of this Nation in jeopardy. We are blessed with the finest military ever in our history. I say that with great respect to my predecessors who fought in previous wars. Our All-Volunteer Force is the best this Nation has ever produced. It is the best of America. We all know that. Do you know what is happening to them right now? I will tell you what is happening to them right now because I talk to them all the time. They don't know where their next deployment is going to be. They don't know if they are going to be adequately trained to defend this Nation. They have lost confidence-- they have lost confidence in the leadership of this Nation. And the good ones, the really good ones, are getting out. They are not going to stay in a military in which they believe there is no future and they are unable to defend this Nation. I tell my colleagues that. Ask anyone in the military today--junior officer, senior officer, senior enlisted person--and they will tell you they are disgusted with what is going on. The least we can do is give them the ability to train and to operate to defend this Nation. This sequester and this legislation we are considering is a direct contradiction to everything we have said and promised them that we would do for them when they agreed as a volunteer to serve this Nation. It is a shameful period in the history of this Congress, the Presidency, and the way we have gone about this business. We will maybe--very likely--pay a very heavy price.

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 to address the Senate on the continuing resolution.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss the continuing resolution we will vote on perhaps today or tomorrow. This bill is much more than a continuing resolution and includes five separate appropriations bills. Our country now faces a $16.6 trillion debt, which is more than $52,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. It is time for Congress to go back to the business of voting on and passing annual budget resolutions, authorization bills, and appropriations bills, instead of a huge Omnibus appropriations bill such as the one before us today. This continuing resolution includes numerous examples of egregious porkbarrel projects as well as billions in spending that was never authorized by the appropriate committee and not requested by the administration. The American taxpayer expects more and deserves more than what we are giving them in this bill. One unfortunate example of Congress overstepping in this CR is the ongoing inclusion of an appropriations rider that prohibits the Postal Service from moving to 5-day mail delivery. This congressional mandate was put in place in 1984, and it is a roadblock, keeping the Postal Service from transforming the way it delivers mail while still being able to provide universal service. The Postal Service lost $1.3 billion in the first quarter of this year and recorded a loss of $15.9 billion in fiscal year 2012. So what are we telling them to do? Business as usual. With the reality that the Postal Service will continue with devastating and unsustainable losses, the Postmaster General announced last month that the Postal Service would move to 5-day mail delivery later this year, which he estimates will save $2 billion annually. However, some in Congress who have decided they know better than the leadership of the Postal Service are moving to prohibit the Postal Service from modernizing and transforming the way it does business. Congress must accept the fact that the Postal Service's current way of doing business is no longer viable. We now correspond by e-mail. We now correspond by different methods. It was terrible when the bridle- and-saddle business went out on the advent of the automobile. Things and times have changed. A huge percentage of the mail delivered today is what we call junk mail advertising. It is no longer the primary way Americans--and people in the world, for that matter--communicate. The American public conducts business in a different way than even 5 years ago. We have to allow the Postal Service to adapt to changing times in order to have a Postal Service in the future, and this includes 5-day mail delivery. The Postal Service loses $1.3 billion in the first quarter, $15.9 billion last year, and do we come up with a fix for it? Do we address the issue? Of course not. There is nothing in this bill that would change that debt. There is nothing in this legislation that fixes the broken Postal Service. But there is a prohibition from them going to 5- day mail delivery which would save $2 billion. Now, you still have about $13.9 billion left over, if it is like last year. So here we are telling the Postal Service they can't go to 5-day delivery, but we have no fix for this problem. And who picks up the tab? Obviously, eventually it is the American taxpayer. No wonder they view us with certain disdain. In addition to this rider, the bill includes porkbarrel spending for things such as--and I am not making them up. Here we are with this debt of $16.6 trillion, and we are going to spend $65 million for the Pacific Coast salmon restoration for States, including the State of Nevada. I am not making that up, $65 million for the Pacific Coast salmon restoration, including in Nevada--a program that even President Obama mocked in his 2011 State of the Union Address; $14.7 million for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Watershed Rehabilitation Program, which the administration has suggested eliminating for years--$993,000 in grants to dig private wells for private property owners; $10 billion for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's high energy cost grants programs that go to subsidize electricity bills in two States: Alaska and Hawaii; $5.9 million for the USDA's economic impact initiative grants. The economic impact initiative grants have become slush funds for local governments to do such things as rehab an exercise room, renovate a museum on the Pacific Island of Palau, and buy kitchen equipment for city government offices. Now I would like to talk a bit about defense spending. This is probably the most painful part of my comments, and I will explain why later on. Defense spending includes over $6 billion in unrequested or unauthorized funding for programs for the Department of Defense. At a time when the Department of Defense is facing the impact of sequestration, on top of the $487 billion in cuts directed by the President, we can't afford to spend a single taxpayer dollar on programs that are not a priority for the Defense Department and our national security. The following things are beginning to happen now that the Department of Defense is under sequestration: The Navy was unable to deploy the USS Truman, an aircraft carrier, to the Middle East at a time when the centrifuges in Tehran are spinning; 80 percent of the Army's nondeploying brigades have reduced readiness; Army base operations have been reduced 30 percent; the Navy is reducing flying hours on deployed carriers in the Middle East by 55 percent and shut down all flying for four of the nine carrier air wings. If funding is restored, returning to normal readiness will take 9 to 12 months and cost two to three times as much. The Air Force is delaying planned acquisition of satellites and aircraft, including JSF and the AC-130J, which will increase the future cost of these systems. And the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps has said: By the end of this year, more than 50 percent of my tactical units will be below minimal acceptable levels of readiness for deployment to combat. My friends, here we are spending money on this kind of junk, on this kind of pork, while the Commandant of the Marine Corps says by the end of this year more than 50 percent of his combat units will be below minimal acceptable levels of readiness for deployment to combat? In what kind of parallel universe are we residing? Instead of trying to remedy these drastic reductions to our military strength, the appropriators are willing to overstep the authorizers and defense leadership and provide increased funding for nonessential programs that are clearly not a national security priority. The Armed Services Committee went to great lengths last year to authorize defense spending for the most critical national security requirements as proposed by the President and defense leadership. Last week I offered an amendment, which was approved by a very narrow margin, that removed funding in the bill for civilian infrastructure-- not military infrastructure, mind you, civilian infrastructure--for Guam. This earmark for Guam directly contravened the explicit direction provided by the Armed Services Committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives in the conference report on the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act and, in my opinion, is a clear example of abuse of the appropriations process. I say to my colleagues, we are not going to stand for it. I say to my friends on the Appropriations Committee, we will not stand for this. Funding for the STARBASE Program. This ``nice to have but not necessary to have'' program will receive $5 million. According to its Web site, STARBASE focuses on elementary students, primarily fifth graders. The program's goal is to motivate these students to explore science, technology, engineering, and math as they continue their education. Military volunteers apply abstract principles to real-world situations by leading tours and giving lectures on the use of STEM in different settings and careers. I am sure that is a nice thing to happen. I am sure STARBASE is nice so that fifth graders are able to hear from members in the military. Meanwhile, we can't deploy an aircraft carrier. With a war going on, a budget crisis at our doorstep, this is how we elect to spend our taxpayers' defense money. Another example is $11.3 million in increase for the Civil Air Program or CAP. CAP is a volunteer organization that provides aerospace education to young people, runs a junior cadet program, and assists, when possible, by providing emergency services. Its members are hard working. We are grateful for their voluntarism. This year, as in the past, the Senate Armed Services Committee authorized the President's request for CAP funding. However, CAP is an auxiliary and should not operate to the detriment of the U.S. Air Force. To succeed at their missions, the Air Force must be able to fly and train at locations such as Luke Air Force Base, which is threatened with reduced flight hours and the closure of two local control towers that could impact air safety around the base. By diverting additional funds--not the primary funding but additional funds--to the Civil Air Patrol from Air Force operations and maintenance accounts which pay for the training and flight operations that keep the Air Force in the sky, we are imposing greater risk on our men and women in uniform. The bill includes $154 million for Army, Navy, and Air Force ``alternative energy research'' initiatives. This type of research has yielded such shining examples as the Department of the Navy's purchase of 450,000 gallons of alternative fuels for $12 million, which is over $26 per gallon. Alternative energy research might be necessary, but shouldn't the Department of Energy do it? Why should the Department of Defense do it, when we cannot fly our airplanes? Section 1822 prohibits the retirement of the C-23 Sherpa aircraft. The Army is currently retiring or divesting the remainder of its fleet of old, limited-duty C-23s, all of which are flown by the Army National Guard. The Army neither wants nor needs these aircraft. The Air Force neither wants nor needs these aircraft. Last year the Congress granted the Army authority to give these planes to any State Governor who wanted them. Guess what. No takers. Now we prevent the Army from retiring these limited-utility aircraft. Another provision provides $15 million for an ``incentive program'' that directs the Department of Defense to overpay on contracts by an additional 5 percent if the contractor is a Native Hawaiian-owned company. If there were ever an example of the special interest pork barrel spending that goes on in this body and infuriates the American people, it is this--$15 million of Americans' tax dollars is going to any Native Hawaiian-owned company to give them an additional 5 percent if they are a contractor. Here we are, spending all our time trying to eliminate the waste and inefficiency in defense contracting, and we are now spending $15 million to overpay them if--if they are a Native Hawaiian-owned company. It will make it easier for the Department of Defense to enter into no-bid contracts for studies, analysis, and unsolicited proposals. The language in the bill makes it ripe for wasteful spending and earmarks for pet projects. For example, the Department of Defense may eliminate competition and use a no-bid contract for a ``product of original thinking and was submitted in confidence by one source.'' If there were ever an example of how pork barrel and earmark spending begins--``for a product of original thinking and was submitted in confidence by one source.'' Another section requires the Secretary of the Air Force to continue procuring C-27J Spartan aircraft despite the Air Force's intent to end production and divest these aircraft, and $24 million to continue development on ACS, which was a canceled Army reconnaissance aircraft program. Another goody for defense contractors: There is a recurring provision in the bill that allows Alaska Native corporations to circumvent the rules of the Office of Management and Budget that would otherwise require them to follow an open and fair competition process in order to obtain Department of Defense contracts. The Department of Defense has a history of awarding billions of dollars in large, sole-source, no-bid contracts to Alaska Native corporations abusively. This matter has been well documented by the Senate subcommittee on contracting, the inspectors general of the Department of Defense and the Small Business Administration. The Washington Post ran a series on the Alaska Native corporation contracting. Last year the Government Accountability Office found that the Department of Defense expeditiously awarded two $500 million, 10- year contracts using this same provision in a past appropriations bill. Several of us on the Armed Services Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee have been trying to ensure that contracts to ANCs undergo extra scrutiny. It does not help that this bill is working against the American taxpayer while Congress should be working to make sure the Department of Defense acquires what it truly needs as economically as possible through competition. There is $48 million in funding for the Defense Department to do research dealing with Parkinson's disease, neurofibromatosis, and HIV/ AIDS research. This research is important. It has no place in a Department of Defense bill. It should be funded by the National Institutes of Health, not the Department of Defense. I ask unanimous consent to have a long list of unspecified and unauthorized and unnecessary and wasteful pork printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am grateful for the kind words and sentiment expressed by my leader Senator McConnell, and I appreciate very much his kind remarks. On this anniversary day, I still think the greatest honor of my life was the privilege of serving in the company of heroes who inspired all of us to things that otherwise we may not have been capable of. It has been a great honor for me to serve with Senator McConnell as my leader in the Senate. On this particular day, I appreciate his very kind sentiments. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maryland. I can assure her that if she and I had served together in that place faraway, she would have been a very tough and courageous resister.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the chairwoman, Senator Mikulski, for allowing me to speak as if in morning business. Syria On March 15, 2011, thousands of Syrian men, women, and children in the city of Deraa gathered together in a public square that is known today as Dignity Square. They came together to peacefully protest against the Syrian regime's decision to arrest and torture a group of 15 teenagers whose crime had been exercising their universally recognized rights to free speech. Their crime was speaking truth to those in power in Syria. They sketched on the wall of their school a statement that remains true in Syria today: ``The people want the regime to fall.'' Since these peaceful calls for change were first heard in Syria 2 years ago, more than 70,000 men, women, and children have been massacred by the Assad regime. More than 1 million refugees have fled their country at a rate of 8,000 people each day as of last month, and 2.5 million people have been displaced within their country. Only the genocide in Rwanda and the first Iraq war have driven more people to refugee status over a similar period of time. These facts and figures are startling. Behind each statistic is a profound human tragedy to which we cannot grow numb as the conflict in Syria presses on into a third year. I certainly cannot. Last April Senator Joe Lieberman and I visited a Syrian refugee camp in southern Turkey, and earlier this year I traveled together with Senators Whitehouse, Ayotte, Blumenthal, and Coons to the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan. I have seen my share of suffering and death, but the horror I saw in those camps and the stories I heard still haunt me today. There were men who had lost all their children, women and girls who had been gang-raped, children who had been tortured, and none of these were the random acts of cruelty that sadly occur in war. Syrian Army defectors told us that killing, raping, and torture was what they were instructed to do as a tactic of terror and intimidation. So if I get a little emotional when I talk about Syria, that is why. The cost--both strategic and humanitarian--of this conflict has been and will continue to be devastating. Earlier this week UNICEF released a report detailing the impact of Syria's 2-year conflict on the children of Syria. The report states: In Syria, children have been exposed to grave human rights violations, including killing and maiming, sexual violence, torture, arbitrary detention, recruitment and use by armed forces and groups, and exposure to explosive remnants of war. . . . As millions of children inside Syria and across the region witness their past and their future disappear amidst the rubble and destruction of this prolonged conflict, the risk of them becoming a lost generation grows every day. The conflict in Syria is breeding a lost generation--a whole new generation of extremists. Earlier this year I met a Syrian teacher in the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan who told me that the generation of young Syrians growing up in these camps and inside Syria will take revenge on those who did nothing to help them in their hour of greatest need. We should be ashamed of our collective failure to come to the aid of the Syrian people. But more than that, we should be deeply concerned. As much as I want to disagree with that Syrian teacher, I am haunted by the belief that she is exactly right. As the conflict of Syria enters its third year, we cannot lose sight of the clear trend toward escalation both in the nature and quality of the killing. In recent months the use of SCUD missiles against civilians fits into a pattern of forced escalation by the Assad regime over the past year. In January 2012 the regime began to use artillery as Syrian opposition forces became more capable against regime ground forces. In June 2012 Assad escalated his use of air power because the rebels were gaining control of the countryside. Today the regime is intensifying its air campaign by firing SCUD missiles at civilian populations, which is taking a deadly toll, particularly in the north where thousands of civilians have been killed over the past several weeks. The regime's escalation to Scud missiles--which can be used as delivery vehicles for chemical weapons--should be alarming to us all. According to a recent report from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Scud missiles can deliver a 1,000-pound, high-explosive warhead or a chemical agent and, as the report states: The rebels have no means of knowing when the missiles have been fired, where they are going, or what kinds of warheads are on board. In fact, even with good intelligence collection, there is no reliable way to know which Scuds have been uploaded with chemical warheads. Let there be no doubt that the threat of chemical weapons is real. I note this morning's headline from the Associated Press: ``Israel's Military Intelligence Chief says Syria's Assad readying to use chemical weapons.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article from the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. This is a dangerous and unfair fight, and the costs to the United States are significant. Russia and Iran are Assad's lifelines in this brutal fight. Iran continues to use Iraqi airspace to fly fighters and large quantities of weapons to Syria to help Assad with the killing. As many as 50,000 Syrians, militiamen, in Syria are being supported by Tehran and Hezbollah, according to a Washington Post report. Meanwhile, Russia continues to ship heavy weapons to Assad-- including, as senior Obama administration officials have stated, the very helicopter gunships the regime is currently using to bomb and shatter civilians. As the United States and the international community stand idle, the consequences are clear. Syria will become a failed State in the heart of the Middle East, threatening both our ally Israel and our NATO ally Turkey. With or without Assad, the country will continue to devolve into a full-scale civil war that is increasingly sectarian, repressive, and unstable. In the meantime, more and more ungoverned space will come under the control of al-Qaida and its allies. Violence and radicalism will spill even more into Lebanon and Iraq, fueling sectarian conflicts that are still burning in both countries. Syria will turn into a battlefield between Sunni and Shia extremists, each backed by foreign powers which will ignite sectarian tensions from North America to the gulf and risk a wider regional conflict. This is the course we are on in Syria, and in the absence of international action, the situation will only get worse. Although Secretary Kerry and other administration officials have said our goal in Syria is to ``change Assad's calculus'' and make room for a negotiated transition, the truth is, in the absence of a shift in the balance of military power on the ground, that is a hopeless goal. What the administration does not seem to realize is what President Bill Clinton came to understand in Bosnia--that a diplomatic resolution in conflict such as this is not possible until the military balance of power changes on the ground. As long as a murderous dictator, be it Slobodan Milosevic or Bashar al-Assad, believes he is winning on the battlefield, he has no incentive to stop fighting and negotiate. Our European powers--led by the French and British--seem to understand this clearly, which is why they are urgently working to persuade their allies to lift an embargo to supply arms to the Syrian opposition. They understand that only a change in military power will bring this conflict to an end. The same is true for the regime's foreign supporters. Despite destroying Russia's reputation in the Arab world, the Russian Government has stuck with Assad for nearly 2 years now. What makes us think President Putin is about to change course now, when Assad is still a dominant power on the ground? The Syrian opposition needs our help to change the balance of power on the ground. I have had the honor of meeting one of the key leaders of the Syrian opposition led by a man named Sheikh al-Khatib, the President of the Syrian National Coalition. Sheikh al-Khatib and the national coalition are doing everything the international community asks of them. They have worked to bring together credible moderate members of the Syrian opposition. They are building institutions, both civilian and military. While the United States and our partners deserve credit in helping and pushing them to do so, when the opposition coalition asks responsible nations for support--when they ask us to help them in coordinating the distribution of aid, governing the liberated areas, and ultimately forming a transitional government--when they have asked us for this assistance, what have we done for them? Next to nothing. Sheikh al-Khatib and the other moderate leaders of the Syrian opposition are struggling desperately to be relevant to their fellow citizens who are fighting and dying every day inside the country. I believe most Syrians do not support al-Qaida. But many of us in the West are still mired in our own internal debates about whether to provide nonlethal assistance or whether to continue to provide assistance through international NGOs--many of which, I would add, still function with the permission of the Assad regime and deliver most of their aid in Damascus--the fight in Syria is being won by extremists. Al-Qaida fighters are showing up in greater numbers in the liberated areas of Syria with capable fighters and food and medicine and other aid. Is it any wonder, then, that extremists are gaining ground in Syria? It is this simple: What is left of the moderate Syrian opposition is in a race against time to survive the radicalization of this conflict and, right now, the world is failing them. The longer we fail them, the worse the outcome will be for us all. The time to act is long overdue, but it is not too late. I know many wish to avoid this reality by telling themselves and others there is nothing we can do in Syria, that our only options are to let the Syrians fight it out alone to the bitter end or to launch a massive and costly military intervention. But the truth is there are many options that we have the capability to undertake that would save lives and protect our important strategic interests in Syria. First, the fact that the opposition in Syria is doing better militarily thanks to external support seems to validate what many of us have been arguing for months; that opposition forces have enough organization to be supportable and that our support can help them to further improve their organization and command and control. This is an argument for doing more, not less, to aid the rebel fighters in Syria, including providing responsible members of the armed opposition who share our goals and our values with the arms they need to succeed. In a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, I asked Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey whether they agreed with a proposal reportedly developed by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former CIA Director David Petraeus last summer to have the United States arm and train members of the Syrian opposition. I was very pleased to hear both Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey state that they supported this proposal which, unfortunately, was refused by the White House. What this means is that the President overruled the senior leaders of his own national security team who were in unanimous agreement that America needs to take greater action to change the military balance of power in Syria. Beyond providing arms to the opposition, we have other capabilities at our disposal that could make a decisive difference on the ground and save lives. I will give just two examples. NATO has deployed PATRIOT missile batteries in Turkey that are capable of shooting down Syrian aircraft as far south as Aleppo. We could establish a limited no-fly zone using these systems and, believe me, after the first few Syrian aircraft are shot down, I doubt Assad's pilots will be lining up to fly missions anymore. Another option would be to destroy Assad's aircraft on their runways with cruise missiles and other standoff weapons. Either way, we can take Syrian air power off the table. Once defended, these safe havens could become platforms for increased deliveries of food and medicine, communications equipment, doctors to treat the wounded, and other nonlethal assistance. They could also serve as staging areas for armed opposition groups to receive battlefield intelligence, body armor, and weapons--from small arms and ammunition to antitank rockets--and to train and organize themselves more effectively, perhaps with foreign assistance. The goal would be to expand the reach of these safe havens across more of the country. Would these actions immediately end the conflict? No. But would they save lives in Syria? Would they give the moderate opposition a better chance to succeed and marginalize the radicals? Would they help the West regain the trust of the Syrian people? Do we have the capability to make a difference? To me, the answer to all these questions is clearly yes. Yes, there are risks to greater involvement in Syria. The opposition is still struggling to get organized. Al-Qaida and the other extremists are working to hijack the revolution, and there are already reports of reprisal killings of Alawites. These risks are real and serious, but the risks of continuing to do nothing are worse. What is needed is American leadership. What is needed is a reminder of the words Abraham Lincoln spoke in his annual message to Congress in 1862: ``We--even we here--hold the power, and bear the responsibility.'' As we mark 2 years of this horrific conflict, if there were ever a case that should remind us of this responsibility, it is that of Syria. A few months ago, The Washington Post interviewed a young Bosnian man who had survived the genocide of Srebrenica in 1995. This is how he sees the ongoing slaughter in Syria: It's bazaar how ``never again'' has come to mean ``again and again,'' he said. It's obvious that we live in a world where Srebrenicas are still possible. What's happening in Syria today is almost identical to what happened in Bosnia two decades ago. He could not be more correct. The conflict in Syria today is nearly indistinguishable from that in Bosnia during the 1990s. As Leon Wieseltier wrote earlier this week in ``The New Republic''--I ask unanimous consent that the complete column by Leon Wieseltier be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Again, as Leon Wieseltier wrote earlier this week in the New Republic: I am finding crushing parallels: A President who is satisfied to be a bystander, and ornaments his prevarications with high moral pronouncements; an extenuation of American passivity by appeals to insurmountable complexities and obscurities on the ground, and to ethnic and religious divisions too deep and too old to be modified by statecraft, and to ominous warnings of anticipated consequences, as if consequences are ever all anticipated; an arms embargo against the people who require arms most, who are the victims of state power; the use of rape and torture and murder against civilians as open instruments of war; the universal knowledge of crimes against humanity and the failure of that knowledge to affect the policy-making will; the dailiness of the atrocity, its unimpeded progress, the long duration of our shame in doing nothing about it. The parallels are not perfect, of course. Only 70,000 people have been killed in Syria, so what's the rush? We must ask ourselves: How many more innocent people must die before we take action? Amidst these crushing parallels, there is one key difference. In Bosnia, President Clinton finally summoned the courage to lead the world to intervene and stop the killing. It is worth recalling his words upon ordering military action in Bosnia in 1995: There are times and places where our leadership can mean the difference between peace and war, and where we can defend our fundamental values as a people and serve our most basic, strategic interests. [T]here are still times when America and America alone can and should make the difference for peace. Those were the words of a Democratic President who led America to do the right thing in stopping mass atrocities in Bosnia, and I remember working with my Republican colleague Senator Bob Dole to support President Clinton in that endeavor. The question for another Democratic President today, and for all of us in a position of responsibility, is whether we will again answer the desperate pleas for rescue that are made uniquely to us as the United States of America, and whether we will use our great power, as we have done before at our best, not simply to advance our own interests but to serve a just cause that is greater than our interests alone. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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 to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 33.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield to the chairwoman.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could I ask my friend a question while he is on that subject?

Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend from Illinois that there is no further objection. The Senator from Oklahoma and I have reviewed the bill and yesterday we discussed its length and our obligations. I promise to my friend from Illinois that we will not rehash that discussion we had. We have no objection whatsoever to taking up amendments right now and moving forward with that. I hope that is perfectly clear to all Members. Very frankly, I am eager to move forward. I will mention to my friend from Illinois that I appreciate the new responsibilities he has. I appreciate the responsibilities he has addressing, as he just said, the largest single part of our appropriations bill which is in the Defense authorization. During the intervening time we had requested, I came up with, for example, $65 million for Pacific coast salmon restorations for States, which includes Nevada. We are going to restore salmon restoration in the State of Nevada? Also listed here is the Department of Defense to overpay contracts by an additional 5 percent--totaling $15 million--for Native Hawaiian- owned companies. I would be glad to include this long list for the Record. There is a request for $993,000 in grants to dig private wells for private property owners; $10 million for USDA high-energy cost grant program to go to subsidize electricity bills in Alaska and Hawaii; $5.9 million for economic impact initiative grants. The list goes on and on. I say to my friend from Illinois that we were trying to examine this legislation--the 587 pages or whatever it is--to find this sort of issue. It is our obligation to do so. We have found these things, and we are still finding additional elements. I see my old friend, the distinguished majority leader, on the floor. We are ready to move forward with amendments. I was saying to my friend from Illinois that we found numerous additional provisions in this legislation that we think are important for debate and discussion. I won't go through all of them, but some of the items include $120 million for Guam; $5 million for the National Guard STARBASE Youth Program; $154 million for alternative energy resource. It goes on and on. In the meantime we have ships that cannot deport, planes that cannot fly, and men and women we cannot train and equip. Yet we have this kind of stuff on the appropriations bills. I want to share with my colleagues that the Senator from Oklahoma and I finished examining this bill yesterday. We are prepared with amendments and moving forward with vigorous debate. If there was any misunderstanding about that, I apologize to the majority leader and my friend from Illinois.