John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if we could continue our dialogue.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the majority leader before he leaves the floor. I look forward to amendments and debate. Again, I apologize to all my colleagues if we held up this legislation, but we did want time to examine this legislation as we had previously requested. I thank my colleagues and look forward to moving forward with amendments. The Senator from Oklahoma and I are prepared with amendments whenever they are in order. I thank my friend from Illinois, and I appreciate the enormous responsibility he has in his new position.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could I briefly respond?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend I had no assurance that what came from the House--the defense portion of this bill--was going to be ``preconferenced,'' and that it was going to be the final bill. So to expect for me to honestly examine the House-passed bill without knowing what the disposition of it would be on the Senate side is a little much. During the intervening time, the Senator from Oklahoma and I have found items in this bill that have nothing to do with the defense bill. For example, $65 million for Pacific coast salmon restoration for States including Nevada. I know there are rivers coursing through Nevada all the way to the Pacific Ocean, but the point is there is $993,000 in grants to dig private wells for private property owners. We have a list of provisions which we were able to uncover which we find controversial and should be open for debate and discussion. But it is over, and we are moving forward. I hope the Senators whose amendments have just been made and ordered will come to the floor so we can debate and vote. I thank the Senator from Illinois, and I yield the floor.

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 33.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be disposed with.

Mr. McCAIN. I come to the floor to talk about amendment No. 33, which would strike sections 8104 and 8039 of the bill. It is a pair of Guam earmarks that directly contravene the explicit directions provided by the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives in the conference report on the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. Congress has not yet received a sufficient cost analysis of the proposed movement of the troops from Okinawa to Guam. Because of that, and the whole operation of these troops from Okinawa to Guam has still not been decided, the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate explicitly prohibited this type of premature investment in civilian infrastructure. At a time when the Department of Defense is facing the impact of sequester, on top of the $487 billion in cuts directed by the President, it is appalling and disgraceful that the authorizing language would be directly circumvented by the authorizers. I want to read the language for my colleagues' benefit. After hours and hours of hearings, of amendments, of markup, of 3 weeks on the floor of the Senate, the product stated: Restriction on development of public infrastructure. If the Secretary of Defense determines that any grant, cooperative agreement, transfer of funds to another Federal agency, or supplement of funds available in fiscal year 2012 or fiscal year 2013 under Federal programs administered by agencies other than the Department of Defense will result in the development (including repair, replacement, renovation, conversion, improvement, expansion, acquisition, or construction) of public infrastructure on Guam, the Secretary of Defense may not carry out such grant, transfer, cooperative agreement, or supplemental funding unless specifically authorized by law. So here is clear language of the National Defense Authorization Act directly contradicted by this continuing resolution. What in the world is the job of the authorizers if it is not to have the language adhered to? At a time when the Department of Defense is facing the impact of sequestration, on top of $487 billion in cuts already directed by the President, the appropriators decided that we would spend $140 million on Guam. It is absolutely unbelievable, I say to my colleagues. Now, let me tell my colleagues about the effect of the sequester that has happened now. According to this line item in the appropriations bill, it will spend $140 million on a wastewater treatment plant on Guam and another project. So we are going to spend $140 million on that. Meanwhile, I say to my colleagues, here is what has already happened, with the sequester to the Armed Forces. The Army: Cancels four brigade exercises at the National Training Center or Joint Readiness Training Center. The Army: Reduced base operations by 30 percent; cancels half the year of helicopters and ground vehicle depot maintenance; stops post-war repair of 1,300 vehicles and 17,000 weapons; reduces readiness of 80 percent of the Army's nondeploying brigades; stops tuition assistance for all Active and Reserve soldiers. Navy: Cancels several submarine deployments; reduces flying hours on deployed carriers in the Middle East by 55 percent; steaming days by 22 percent; reduces Western Pacific deployed operations by 35 percent; nondeployed Pacific ships lose 40 percent of steaming days; reduces Middle East Atlantic MED ballistic missile defense patrols; shuts down all flying for four of nine carrier air wings 9 to 12 months to restore normal readiness at two to three times the cost; cuts all major naval exercises; defers emergent repairs; cancels Blue Angels shows in third and fourth quarter; USS Truman carrier deployment delayed indefinitely. I might say that deployment was to the Middle East where the centrifuges are spinning. The USS Eisenhower career deployment extended indefinitely; USS Nimitz and USS Bush carrier strike groups will not be fully ready for scheduled fiscal year 2013 deployments. Air Force: Likely prevent Air Force's ability to achieve the 2017 goal of being fully auditable; defer nonemergency facility requirements; reduce repairs by 50 percent over 420 projects at over 140 installations across the Air Force; affects runway repairs and critical sustainment projects; delays planned acquisition of satellites and aircraft, including JSF and AC-130J, which will increase the future cost of these systems; reduces flying hours for cargo, fighter and bomber aircraft; stops tuition assistance for all Active and Reserve airmen. Marine Corps: I hope my colleagues will listen to this. The Commandant of the Marine Corps says: By the end of this year, more than 50 percent of my combat units will be below minimal acceptable levels of readiness for deployment to combat. I repeat. The Commandant of the Marine Corps says: By the end of this year, more than 50 percent of my combat units will be below minimal acceptable levels of readiness for deployment to combat. Unable to complete rebalancing of Marine Corps forces into the Asia Pacific region; will cause 55 percent of the U.S. Marine Corps forces to have unsatisfactory readiness ratings; 50 percent of the U.S. Marine Corps aviation squadrons will fall below ready-to-deploy status; U.S. Marine Corps will not be able to accomplish planned reset of equipment returning from overseas expeditionary forces; depot level maintenance will be reduced, delaying resettability by 18 months and reducing nondeployed forces; facilities sustainment will be funded at 71 percent of requirement, reducing effectiveness of home station training and quality of life. These are the effects of sequestration. So what do they do? What do they do in the continuing resolution? They add $140 million for Guam for a wastewater treatment plant. Talk about divorced from reality. Talk about insensitivity to the men and women who are serving this country. I am already beginning to hear from them, I will tell you that. There are a lot of bright young men and women who are serving this country, are serving it with courage and skill and are the best probably we have ever seen. I am hearing from their leaders. They are making decisions about whether to stay in the military. It is an All- Volunteer Force. I can tell you what a lot of them are deciding when they see something as ridiculous as this, and there are other outrageous and stupid things in this bill. While all of the things are taking place in the Air Force, the Army, and the Marine Corps, we are now on this list--we have $5 million--they are adding money, adding money, adding millions. In fact, it comes up to billions--$5 million for the National Guard Youth Challenge Program, $5 million for the Department of Defense Star Base Youth Program, $154 million for an Army, Navy, and Air Force ``alternative energy resource initiative,'' $18 million for unspecified ``industrial preparedness,'' $16 million for Parkinson's disease research--there is a whole bunch in here for medical research. They are taking it out of defense. I am for research in all of these programs, whether it be Parkinson's or neurofibromatosis or HIV/AIDS research, but they are taking it out of defense. They are adding $9 million for unspecified radar research, $20 million for university research initiatives, $7 million for a Civil Air Patrol Program increase, $45 million for Impact Aid. The list goes on and on and on. While the Air Force is unable to fly, the Civil Air Patrol will get an additional $15 million. I am a great admirer of the Civil Air Patrol. The fact is that what we are doing is we are cutting the flying hours and affecting the readiness of the men and women who are serving in the military in this country. I repeat a statement of the Commandant of the Marine Corps: By the end of this year, ``more than 50 percent of my combat units will be below minimal acceptable levels of readiness for deployment to combat.'' What did these appropriators do? They put in $140 million for wastewater treatment on Guam, which is expressly prohibited by the National Defense Authorization Act. I have been on this floor for many years fighting against what I believe is encroachment by appropriators on the authorizers' business. I have never, in 26 years as a member of the defense appropriations committee and the Armed Forces committee, seen anything quite as egregious as this. I say to my colleagues, who are authorizers and not appropriators, if you let them get away with directly violating and contradicting the express language of the National Defense Authorization Act, you are next. You are next. This is unacceptable. I hope my colleagues will vote on the issue of whether we need to spend this money, particularly at this moment, with the condition of our military. Many of our constituents say: Why is this being so hard hit? Why is the military being so hard hit? They don't quite understand sequester--this thing the President said won't happen. This sequester affects 19 percent of what we call the discretionary spending. They exempted about two-thirds of all of the discretionary spending and then took 50 percent of what was left of 19 percent of the spending. This has a dramatically increased effect on what we need most; that is, our national security. It is shameful. I hope my colleagues and friends know that this Guam provision would provide, which is expressly prohibited, $120 million for a public regional health laboratory and civilian wastewater improvements. The Department of Defense wants to move marines to Guam but does not know how much military infrastructure will be needed--military infrastructure will be needed to support the move--what the implications will be to operational responsiveness in the Pacific theater or how much any of it will cost. Over the last 2 years, the Armed Services Committee received many hours of testimony, briefings, and meetings on the troop realignment in the Pacific and directed the Center for Strategic and International Studies to conduct an independent assessment on U.S. force strategy in the region. The assessment--delivered in August 2012--recommended a better alignment of engagement strategies between the U.S. Pacific Command and the Department of Defense in order to improve our capabilities in the region and respond to a range of contingencies. The CSIS was clear in the appraisal that the Department of Defense had not adequately articulated the strategy behind its future posture planning nor aligned the strategy with resources in a way that reflects current budget realities. After more testimony, briefings, and meetings, the Armed Services Committee acted and, through the vehicle of the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, prohibited the use of funds for any military realignment to Guam until the Department of Defense and the U.S. Pacific Command provided a detailed set of reports. These reports will address the plan for ensuring that any proposed force realignments in the Pacific region to include moving U.S. marines from Japan to Guam and Hawaii are supported by resources that will allow our forces to meet operational requirements. Admiral Locklear, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, told me yesterday that these reports would be ready this summer. The Department of Defense has planning left to do. While Congress may someday authorize some number of marines to be realigned to Guam, it will only be after we have a clear understanding of the clear implications and costs. In this context, the Appropriations Committee would fund unrequested civilian infrastructure--not military infrastructure, civilian infrastructure--far greater in scope than would be required in the event the most extreme estimates of troop realignment occurred. There is absolutely no justification for it. This is why the Armed Services Committee expressly prohibited such funding, because we don't know how much military or civilian infrastructure we may need, if any. Has one single marine, sailor, or airman been assigned to Guam as part of the intended buildup that would justify using DOD money to rebuild Guam civilian wastewater facilities or build a new civilian health laboratory? The answer is obviously no. The support payoff to Guam to solve an already existing problem has nothing to do with any future military realignment to Guam. This is no better than last year's set of earmarks for a cultural artifacts repository. It should be very clear by now that these expenditures pushed through in direct contravention of the bipartisan, bicameral decisions of the Armed Services Committee are a shameful waste of taxpayers' money. In my view, this is a clear example of political abuse of the appropriations process. I could go on for a long time. In fact, instead of doing a continuing resolution, we should be doing everything we can to avoid the sequester, which has such a disastrous effect on our military. I am sure my colleagues are aware that in Tehran the centrifuges are spinning. North Korea just had another nuclear test. They threatened to cancel the cease-fire of 1953. They are making very aggressive noises toward South Korea and, I believe, our 30,000 men and women who are stationed there. Tension between Japan and China is very high. For my colleagues' information, I am sure they know that the Chinese have increased, doubled, and redoubled their spending on their military. The Middle East is in a state of turmoil, which could lead to an international crisis almost at any moment. Seventy thousand Syrians have been slaughtered by Bashar al-Asad. There are over 1 million refugees, as that conflict shows all possibility of spreading to Lebanon and to Jordan. What are we doing? We are imposing Draconian cuts on the U.S. military, which caused the Commandant of the Marine Corps to say 50 percent of all his combat units will be below minimal acceptable levels of readiness for deployment to combat. I have been around this body and this Nation for a long time. I have seen this movie before. Everybody talks about war weariness. Everybody talks about how weary we are of Iraq and Afghanistan, and indeed we are. We were war weary after Vietnam. We cut the military, cut the military, and we cut the military as we are doing today. The Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army in the late 1970s came before the Armed Services Committee and said we have a hollow army. Do you know what we are doing right now with sequestration? We are hollowing out our military. To add insult to injury, we are putting on a long list of wasteful, unnecessary programs, many of which have nothing to do with defending this Nation. Some are outright pork-barrel spending. I hope my colleagues, particularly those on authorizing committees, will understand that if the appropriators are able to directly contradict language in authorizations that are passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States, then you become irrelevant to the process. I don't think the 80-so of us who are not members of the Appropriations Committee should be subjected to irrelevance. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I guess the time here is short. Sometimes when you can't argue the merits of an issue you just make up something. Senator Durbin claims this amendment would cut funding for the Fisher House, Red Cross, and the USO. If you read the bill, the Fisher House is covered in the CR in section 8070. The Red Cross and USO are covered in section 8078. This amendment strikes section 8039, which pertains to the Office of Economic Adjustment fund, the OEA fund. It has nothing to do with Fisher Houses, the Red Cross, mothers of America, apple pie, or the flag--nothing to do with those except that it strikes legislation which is expressly prohibited in the Defense authorization bill. It strikes language which is directly prohibited by the National Defense Authorization Act. If the Senator wants to claim that Fisher House, Red Cross, USO, small animals, children, the United Way, whatever else he wants to, they are covered in other parts of the bill. I suggest to the Senator from Illinois reread the bill which says--section 8070 talks about Fisher Houses; section 8078 talks about the Red Cross and the USO. Our amendment strikes 8039, which is the Office of Economic Adjustment, that funding. I thank the Senator for recognizing that. It is already part of the record. It is very clear this has nothing to do with the Fisher House.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, along with the Senator from Oklahoma, I intend to object. I think the Senator made the case. I will remind my colleagues that 1 week ago Senator Coburn and I sent a letter to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell with copies to Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby. We stated in one sentence: We write to inform you of our intention to object to entering into a time agreement before consideration of a continuing resolution until we have had at least 72 hours to review its contents. That is what we wrote. That is what we asked for. I will remind my colleagues again, it is a 587-page bill of over $1 trillion that we got at 9 p.m. last night. Is there anyone who has had time to read this entire bill that is 587 pages long? We are talking about $1 trillion, and we are holding up the Senate? We have had since 9 p.m. last night until 3:30 p.m. this afternoon to examine a 587-page bill of over $1 trillion. What we have already found--and we have not finished, but we hope to be finished with examining this legislation within a few hours--is the most egregious pork-barrel spending during a time of sequestration. I find it mind-boggling. We spent 3 weeks in December on the floor of this Senate doing the fiscal year 2013 Defense authorization bill. There are provisions in this CR that were directly prohibited in the Defense authorization bill. I respect the knowledge of the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Maryland on defense issues, but we spent 3 weeks and hundreds of hours in hearings including amendments and markup. For example, we said there would be no money for Guam until we have a coherent strategy laid out by the administration as to how we were going to implement the base realignment. The fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act prohibited expending that money. What have they crammed into this 587-page bill? There is $120 million for a public regional health laboratory and civilian wastewater improvements in Guam. Why? I ask my friend from Alabama: Why does this directly contradict the authorization bill which was just passed that said no money would be given to Guam for these purposes until such time as we had developed the strategy for the base realignment in Guam? Is it because the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Maryland know something more than the Defense authorization bill authorizers did? We had debate, discussion, and authorization of this, and we specifically prohibited it. So here we are. We have not been able to deploy an aircraft carrier because of sequestration. We have had to cut down on flying hours. We have had to reduce maintenance. We have had to make all kinds of tough decisions as to the men and women who are serving, not to mention the equipment, operations, and maintenance. What have we already found out in this bill? I want to assure my colleagues I am not making this up. There is an additional $5 million for the National Guard Youth Challenge program. I think the National Guard Youth Challenge Program is a pretty worthwhile project, but is it worthwhile when we are having to keep a carrier from deployment? There is $5 million for the National Guard STARBASE Youth Program; another $154 million for the Army, Navy, and Air Force ``alternative energy research initiatives.'' This type of research has developed such shining examples as the Department of Navy's purchase of 450,000 gallons of alternative fuel for $12 million, which is over $26 per gallon. There is $18 million for unspecified ``industrial preparedness,'' $16 million for Parkinson's disease research. That part is out of Defense, my friends. That is not out of Health and Human Services; it is out of Defense. There is $16 million for neurofibromatosis research, $16 million for HIV-AIDS research, which is a worthy cause, but it is taken out of Defense. There is $9 million for unspecified radar research, $567 million for unrequested medical research, $20 million for university research initiatives, and $7 million for the Civil Air Patrol program increase. The list goes on and on, and we have not finished. How in the world do we have a provision ``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,'' how in the world is this justified during this time of sequestration? I note the presence of our leader on the floor, and I want to assure the leader, with all due respect, that this is a 587-page bill of over $1 trillion. We got it at 9 p.m. last night. I hope that in a few hours we will be able to finish examining this bill. What we have found so far is so egregious it is hard to imagine that anybody--in light of the sequestration and the damage it does to the lives of the men and women who are serving the military--could have added these kinds of provisions and, frankly, is beyond anything I think I have ever seen in the years I have served in the Senate. I yield to the distinguished majority leader, but before I do, I object.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask through the Chair if my friend would yield for a question.

Mr. McCAIN. First of all, I appreciate very much the majority leader's responsibility to make sure we take up and pass legislation. There are many times when I have to say that the majority leader has been frustrated by some events and individuals which arouses my sympathy for the responsibility he has and his inability to carry out his duties. I point out to my friend from Nevada that we just got this bill last night, so to rely on the fact that a House bill should be our guide when we know there were many provisions added--at least some provisions that were added that we already found in the Senate version of the bill--I would hope he would understand we need a little more time to try to get through the entire bill, which I hope will be sooner rather than later. Once that is done, then we can--as the majority leader said--be open for amendments. I hope the majority leader understands our point of view, that this is bill over $1 trillion with 587 pages. For us to take sort of an act of faith that this is the bill that came from the House is obviously not the case.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. McCAIN. The point of the Senator from Illinois is very well made, but unless we know the entirety of the bill, we don't know what our priorities are as far as amendments are concerned. I am sure the Senator knows that even though amendments are going to be allowed, there is going to be a limited number of amendments. We know how things work around this place come Thursday afternoon. All we are asking is to give us a little more time. It was 9 o'clock last night when we received the final version of the bill. I would say to my friend from Illinois, unless we know what is in the bill in its entirety, it is hard for us to know what the priority amendments we intend on proposing are. I think we are nearly through the examination of the bill. I do not wish to impede the progress of the Senate on this legislation. I know how important it is. I also hope my friend will understand that we asked a week ago to have 72 hours, which is the normal Senate procedure, to examine the bill before we consider it. I understand the exigencies of the moment-- all the back and forth between both sides of the Capitol--but I don't believe, for a $1 trillion bill, 587 pages, it is too much to ask for about 12 hours, or 14 hours, 15 hours--we have our staff working full time, and I wish to assure the Senator we will have it done soon.

Mr. McCAIN. Look, my dear friend, every Senator has their responsibilities in this body. I have a responsibility particularly where defense is concerned. We spent 3 weeks on this legislation, including hundreds of amendments, hours and hours of debate, markup in the committee of hours and hours, hundreds of hours of hearings by the leaders of our military and the administration. I haven't finished examining the defense part of this bill. Now, why am I so worried about the provisions of this bill? Because there are provisions in this bill that directly contradict the Defense authorization we spent weeks on. We prohibited money for Guam, OK? We prohibited it. Now there is $120 million in the bill for it. So that makes me curious as to what else is in this bill. So I think for me to go back and tell my constituents in Arizona, who are heavily dependent on our national defense and our bases, to say, Yes, I went ahead without even reading the whole bill, without even my staff going through the entire bill; we were in such a hurry with our over $1 trillion legislation that they didn't want me to hold up the Senate so people could propose amendments--that is not my duty to the citizens of Arizona. So I say with respect to my friend, I respect the rights of all other Senators. I hope the rights of the Senator from Oklahoma and my rights would be respected and that includes reading a piece of legislation that is 587 pages long.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I say to the distinguished chairwoman, I will go back to my office right now, get together with Senator Coburn, and see if we can't come up with a definite time, and I assure the Senator from Maryland it will be a short period of time.

Mr. McCAIN. Well, again, I thank my friend from Illinois and I thank him for his point of view. I understand it. I understand the frustration of our two leaders on the Appropriations Committee and their desire to get this done. I understand the time clock is running out. We are talking about a very short period of time. But I have to repeat to the Senator from Illinois one more time: I am not going to go back to my State and say, By the way, I started the amendment process and debating on a bill that I hadn't read. I don't do that, and I hope the Senator from Illinois respects it. I hope in a very short period of time we can agree to proceed and have vigorous debate and amendments. I also have to say this is remarkable. Here we are, I say to my friend from Illinois, in a period of sequestration, and there is a provision in here for $15 million for an incentive program that directs the Department of Defense to overpay contracts by an additional 5 percent if the contractor is a Native Hawaiian-owned company. That boggles the mind. It is unbelievable. While we are keeping ships tied up at the pier because we can't deploy them, we are now going to tell Native Hawaiian companies they are going to be overpaid by an additional 5 percent if they are based in Hawaii. What is that all about? That is why the Senator from Oklahoma and I have to read the bill. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes, ma'am.

Mr. McCAIN. I would say to the Senator, the distinguished chairperson, I respect that and I would never impugn her motives. I said I thought I understood the time constraints the Senator from Maryland is under, given the House and the Senate and all that. I certainly did not intend to believe that there was anything----

Mr. McCAIN. I think in a very short time. I have to coordinate with the Senator from Oklahoma, but I think within a couple of hours.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will try to carry out my mission as assigned by the distinguished chairperson. I thank her for her leadership and her excellent work. I thank both leaders.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as if in morning business and ask to be joined in colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Graham.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to quote from this morning's editorial in the Wall Street Journal entitled ``Rand Paul's Drone Rant.'' I wish to read for the edification of my colleagues the editorial which was in the Wall Street Journal, a credible media outlet, this morning. The Wall Street Journal reads: Give Rand Paul credit for theatrical timing. As the storm descended on Washington, the Kentucky Republican's old- fashioned filibuster Wednesday filled the attention void on Twitter and cable TV. If only his reasoning matched the showmanship. Shortly before noon, Senator Paul began talking filibuster against John Brennan's nomination to lead the CIA. The tactic is rarely used in the Senate and was last seen in 2010. But Senator Paul said an ``alarm'' had to be sounded about the threat to Americans from their own government. He promised to speak ``until the President says, no, he will not kill you at a cafe.'' He meant by a military drone. He's apparently serious, though his argument isn't. Senator Paul had written the White House to inquire about the possibility of a drone strike against a U.S. citizen on American soil. Attorney General Eric Holder replied that the U.S. hasn't and ``has no intention'' to bomb any specific territory. Drones are limited to the remotest area of conflict zones like Pakistan and Yemen. But as a hypothetical constitutional matter, Mr. Holder acknowledged the President can authorize the use of lethal military force within U.S. territory. This shocked Senator Paul, who invoked the Constitution and Miranda rights. Under current U.S. policy, Mr. Paul mused on the floor, Jane Fonda could have been legally killed by a Hellfire missile during her tour of Communist Hanoi in 1972. A group of noncombatants sitting in public view in Houston may soon be pulverized, he declared. Calm down, Senator. Mr. Holder is right, even if he doesn't explain the law very well. The U.S. Government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. I repeat that: The U.S. Government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an ``enemy combatant'' anywhere at any time, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant. The President can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity--a government, say, or a terrorist network like al- Qaida--that has taken up arms against the United States as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict. That does not include Hanoi Jane. Such a conflict exists between the U.S. and al-Qaida, so Mr. Holder is right that the U.S. could have targeted (say) U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki had he continued to live in Virginia. The U.S. killed him in Yemen before he could kill more Americans. But under the law al-Awlaki was no different than the Nazis who came ashore on Long Island in World War II, were captured and executed. The country needs more Senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he's talking about. I watched some of that ``debate'' yesterday. I saw colleagues of mine who know better come to the floor and voice this same concern, which is totally unfounded. I must say that the use of Jane Fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me, and I must say she is not my favorite American, but I also believe that as odious as it was, Ms. Fonda acted within her constitutional rights. To somehow say that someone who disagrees with American policy, and even may demonstrate against it, is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply false. It is simply false. I believe we need to visit this whole issue of the use of drones--who uses them, whether the CIA should become their own Air Force, what the oversight is. The legal and political foundation for this kind of conflict needs to be reviewed. Relating to this, let me quote from an article by Jack Goldsmith that was in the Washington Post on February 5, 2013, entitled: ``U.S. needs a rulebook for secret warfare.'' The legal foundation rests mostly on laws designed for another task that government lawyers have interpreted, without public scrutiny, to meet new challenges. Outside the surveillance context, Congress as a body has not debated or approved the means or ends of secret warfare. Because secret surveillance and targeted strikes, rather than U.S. military detention, are central to the new warfare, there are no viable plaintiffs to test the government's authorities in court. In short, executive-branch decisions since 2001 have led the Nation to a new type of war against new enemies on a new battlefield without enough focused national debate, deliberate congressional approval or real judicial review. What the government needs is a new framework statute--akin to the National Security Act of 1947, or the series of intelligence reforms made after Watergate, or even the 2001 authorization of force--to define the scope of the new war, the authorities and limitations on presidential power, and forms of review of the President's actions. I don't think we should have any doubt there are people both within the United States of America and outside it who are members of terrorist organizations and who want to repeat 9/11. All of us thank God there has not been a repeat of 9/11. Most of the experts I know will say there has been a certain element of luck--a small element but still an element of luck, such as the Underwear Bomber and others--that has prevented a devastating attack on the United States. But to somehow allege or infer the President of the United States is going to kill somebody such as Jane Fonda or someone who disagrees with the government's policies is a stretch of imagination which is, frankly, ridiculous--ridiculous. I don't disagree that we need more debate, more discussion, and, frankly, probably more legislation to make sure America does protect the rights of all our citizens and to make sure, at the same time, if someone is an enemy combatant, that enemy combatant has nowhere to hide--not in a cafe, not anywhere. But to say that somehow, even though we try to take that person, that we would hit them in a cafe with a Hellfire missile--well, first of all, there are no drones with Hellfire missiles anywhere near. They are over in places such as Yemen and Afghanistan and other places around the world. We have done a disservice to a lot of Americans by making them believe that somehow they are in danger from their government. They are not. But we are in danger--we are in danger--from a dedicated, longstanding, easily replaceable leadership enemy that is hellbent on our destruction, and this leads us to having to do things perhaps we haven't had to do in other more conventional wars. I don't believe Anwar al-Awlaki should have been protected anywhere in the world, but that doesn't mean they are going to take him out with a Hellfire missile. It means we are going to use our best intelligence to apprehend and debrief these people so we can gain the necessary intelligence to bring them all to justice. All I can say is, I don't think what happened yesterday is helpful for the American people. We need a discussion, as I said, about exactly how we are going to address this new form of almost interminable warfare, which is very different from anything we have ever faced in the past, but somehow to allege the United States of America, our government, would drop a drone Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda, that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about U.S. policy to the realm of the ridiculous. I would also like to add an additional note. About 42 percent, as I am told, of the Members of this Senate are here for 6 years or less. Every time a majority party is in power, they become frustrated with the exercise of the minority and their rights in the Senate. Back some years ago, when the Republicans--this side of aisle--were in the majority, we were going to eliminate the ability to call for 60 votes on the confirmation of judges. We were able to put that aside. There was another effort at the beginning of this Senate to do away with 60 votes and go back down to 51, which, in my view, would have destroyed the Senate. A lot of us worked very hard--a group of us--for a long time to come up with some compromises that would allow the Senate to move more rapidly and efficiently but at the same time preserving the 60-vote majority requirement on some pieces of legislation. What we saw yesterday is going to give ammunition to those critics who say the rules of the Senate are being abused. I hope my colleagues on this side of the aisle will take that into consideration. I note the presence of the Senator from South Carolina. The Senator from South Carolina, as many of our colleagues know, is a lawyer. He has been a military lawyer in the Air Force Reserve for over 20 years. If there is anyone in the Senate who knows about this issue from a legal and technical standpoint, it is my colleague from South Carolina. I ask my colleague from South Carolina, is there any way the President of the United States could just randomly attack someone, with a drone or a Hellfire missile, without that person being designated an enemy combatant? And I don't think, as much as I hate to say it, that applies to Jane Fonda.

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask my colleague a question especially on that subject. A lot of our friends--particularly Senator Paul and others--pride themselves on their strict adherence to the Constitution and the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Isn't it true that as a result of an attack on Long Island during World War II, an American citizen--among others--was captured and hung on American soil, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that execution because that individual was an enemy combatant? Does that establish without a doubt the fact that these are enemy combatants, and no matter where they are, they are subject to the same form of justice as the terrorists in World War II were?

Mr. McCAIN. And should not be construed as an authority to kill somebody in a cafe.