John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. And may I say to my friend that there are scenarios where there could be an extreme situation where there is a direct threat. We could draw many scenarios--a bomb-laden, explosive-laden vehicle headed for a nuclear powerplant--where the President of the United States may have to use any asset the President has in order to prevent an impending catastrophic attack on the United States of America. And that is within the realm of possible scenarios. So to somehow say that we would kill people in cafes and therefore drone strikes should never be used under any circumstances I believe is a distortion of the realities of the threats we face. As we are speaking, there are people who are plotting to attack the United States of America. We know that. At the same time, we are ready, as the Senator said, to discuss, debate, and frame legislation that brings us up to date with the new kind of war we are in. But to somehow have a debate and a discussion that we would have killed Jane Fonda does, in my view, a disservice to the debate and discussion that needs to be conducted.

Mr. McCAIN. If I may say real quickly, an imminent threat. MR. DURBIN. Yes.

Mr. McCAIN. We may have to do a little better job of defining that, but to say imminent threat would then translate into killing somebody in a cafe is not a mature debate or discussion.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I think that concludes our discussion. I would agree with the Senator from Illinois and my colleague from South Carolina that we need hearings. We need to discuss how we conduct this--the United States, in what appears to be, for all intents and purposes, an interminable conflict that we are in and we have to adjust to it. But that conversation should not be talking about drones killing Jane Fonda and people in cafes. It should be all about what authority and what checks and balances should exist in order to make it a most effective ability to combat an enemy that we know will be with us for a long time.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank my colleague and also thank the Senator from Illinois for his engagement. In closing, I would like to congratulate my friend from South Carolina for his best behavior last night at dinner. He was on his best manners and everyone was very impressed. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that I must oppose cloture on the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. During the 109th Congress, I joined 13 of my Senate colleagues to negotiate a compromise as part of an effort to avoid use of the so-called nuclear option to break an organized filibuster on judicial nominations. A tenet of that agreement was the right of ``signatories to exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith.'' Further, the agreement went on to state that ``nominees should be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.'' In keeping with the 2005 agreement, I have decided to oppose the President's nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Ms. Halligan's demonstrated record of judicial activism on issues ranging from holding firearm manufacturers liable for the crimes of third parties, to arguments regarding National Labor Relations Board authorities, to her record on the detention of enemy combatants, indicates to me that her activist record would only continue if granted the privilege of sitting on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. It is for these reasons and others that I believe Ms. Halligan meets the ``extraordinary circumstances'' requirement expressed in the agreement. An important constitutional responsibility of the executive branch and the U.S. Senate is to ensure that the Federal bench is able to handle its caseload expeditiously. In my view, we should only oppose cloture in extraordinary circumstances. Unfortunately, I believe this nominee meets that requirement, and my vote to oppose is consistent with the agreement made in 2005.

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 speak as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. McCAIN pertaining to the submission of S. Con. Res. 5 are located in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about a resolution I have submitted which calls on the President of the United States to posthumously pardon the world's first African-American heavyweight champion, John Arthur ``Jack'' Johnson. I am proud to be joined in this effort by my friend, the majority leader, Harry Reid and the Senator from Massachusetts Mr. Cowan. I would point out that the majority leader of the Senate was once an excellent fighter himself, of great skill and agility, which he continues to display here as majority leader of the Senate. I would also like to thank him for his commitment to the sport of boxing and for joining me again in attempting to do justice for a man who was done a great injustice. For my colleagues who may not be familiar with the story of the late Jack Johnson, he is considered by many to be the most dominant athlete in boxing history. Arthur John Johnson was born in Galveston, TX, in 1878 to parents who were former slaves. At an early age, he realized his talent for the sweet science. In order to make a living, Johnson traveled across the country fighting anyone willing to face him. But he was denied repeatedly, on purely racial grounds, a chance to fight for the world heavyweight title. For too long African-American fighters were not seen as legitimate contenders for the championship. Fortunately, after years of perseverance, Johnson was finally granted an opportunity in 1908 to fight the then-reigning title holder, Tommy Burns, in Sydney, Australia. Even though the fight lasted 14 rounds, Johnson handily defeated Burns to become the first African-American heavyweight champion of the world. Jack Johnson's success in the ring, and sometimes indulgent lifestyle outside of it, fostered resentment among many and raised concerns that his continued dominance in the ring would somehow disrupt what was then perceived by many as a racial order. So as history tells us, a search for a Caucasian boxer who could defeat Johnson began. This recruitment effort became known as the search for the ``Great White Hope.'' The so- called hope arrived in the person of former champion Jim Jeffries, who returned from retirement to fight Johnson in 1910. Johnson went on to defeat Jeffries, and as a shameful consequence race riots broke out in several cities as many sought to avenge Jeffries' defeat. Following the loss of the ``Great White Hope,'' the Federal Government launched an investigation into the legality of Johnson's relationships with Caucasian women. At that time the Mann Act, which was enacted in 1910, outlawed the transport of Caucasian women across State lines for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery or for ``any other immoral purpose.'' Using the ``any other immoral purpose'' clause as a pretext, Federal law enforcement officials set out to get Jack Johnson. On October 18, 1912, the Federal Government got their man. On that day, Johnson was arrested for transporting his Caucasian girlfriend across State lines in violation of the Mann Act. However, the charges were subsequently dropped when the Caucasian female, whose mother had originally tipped off Federal officials, refused to cooperate with authorities. She later married Jack Johnson. Not to be outdone, the Federal authorities remained persistent in their determination to persecute Johnson, persuading a former scorned Caucasian girlfriend of Johnson's to testify that he had transported her across State lines. Her testimony resulted in Johnson's conviction in 1913, when he was sentenced to 1 year and a day in Federal prison. During Johnson's appeal, one prosecutor admitted: Mr. Johnson was perhaps persecuted as an individual, but that it was his misfortune to be the foremost example of the evil in permitting the intermarriage of whites and blacks. After the trial, Johnson fled the country to Canada and then traveled to various European and South American countries before losing his heavyweight champion title in Cuba in 1915. Ultimately overcome by homesickness, Jack Johnson returned to the United States in 1920, surrendering to Federal authorities, and served nearly 1 year in Federal prison. Despite this obvious and clear injustice, Johnson refused to turn his back on the country that betrayed him. Mr. Johnson died in an automobile accident in 1946 at the age of 68 years. Today, as we look back on our Nation's history, the Jack Johnson case is a shameful stain apparent to all. Rectifying this injustice is long overdue. The resolution we submit today calls on the President to pardon Mr. Johnson posthumously. It recognizes the unjustness of what transpired and sheds light on the achievements of an athlete who was forced into the shadows of bigotry and prejudice. Jack Johnson may have been a flawed individual, and he was certainly controversial during his day, but he was also a historic American figure whose life and accomplishments played an instrumental role in our Nation's development and progress toward true equality under the law. There is no doubt Jack Johnson deserved much better than a racially motivated conviction which denied him his liberty and served to diminish his athletic, cultural, and historic significance. As a body we should adopt this resolution and continue to fight for a posthumous pardon for Jack Johnson to afford future generations the opportunity to grasp fully what Jack Johnson accomplished--against great odds--and appreciate his contributions to society unencumbered by the taint of an unjust, racially motivated criminal conviction. Sadly, there is no way for us to possibly right the wrong that was done to Jack Johnson during his lifetime, but what we can do is take this small step toward acknowledging his mistreatment and remove the cloud that casts a shadow on his legacy. After all, that cloud over Jack Johnson's legacy says more about our past wrongs than it could honestly ever say about Johnson's own. As such, I urge my colleagues to support and swiftly adopt the resolution which requests the President of the United States grant Jack Johnson a posthumous pardon.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I have the right to ask a question from the person who has the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I would ask the Senator to yield to respond to one question.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, obviously we regret that we have not been able to reach an agreement. I am especially disappointed that we are unable to consider the Ayotte amendment, which is an alternative to the sequestration. A flexibility of sequestration would still sooner or later have the same Draconian effects on our national security. I also would point out to my colleagues that what we are about to go through is in some respects a charade because we know the proposal on that side will not succeed with 60 votes, and the proposal on this side will not succeed with 60 votes. Meanwhile, the clock moves on until sometime tomorrow night. Some of us warned for a long time about the effects of sequestration, and if we want to have a blame game, then I will take blame, everybody takes blame. But isn't it time that we prevented what our military leaders in uniform, who have made their careers and their lives serving and sacrificing for this country, say would harm and inflict terrible damage on our ability to defend this Nation, our inability to train and equip the men who are serving? I always appreciate very much when Members on both sides of the aisle praise the men and women who are serving in the military. I am always pleased to see that. But shouldn't we be thinking about them now? Shouldn't we be thinking about those men and women who are serving who literally do not know what they are going to be doing tomorrow--like the crew of the aircraft carrier that they decided not to deploy to the Middle East at a time when tensions are incredibly high? I would also point out to my colleagues that this is not a fair sequestration. Most Americans believe this is half out of defense, half out of nondefense. It is not. Under the formulation of the sequestration, about half of the spending we engage in is exempt, such as compensation for the President, such as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, such as payment to the District of Columbia Pension Fund, such as the Host Nation Support Fund for Relocation. All of these and many others were made exempt, which meant the cuts and the reductions in defense were even larger, and, obviously, those who designed this legislation decided that the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and relocation funding was more important than national defense because we didn't exempt national defense. That is disgraceful. Nineteen percent of discretionary spending is out of defense. We are asking for a 50-percent cut out of defense, on top of $87 billion that has already been enacted under Secretary Gates, on top of $487 billion in defense which is already on track to be cut. The percentage of gross national product for defense continues to decline. What are we doing? A few days ago there was a wonderful ceremony in the White House where a brave young American received the Congressional Medal of Honor. I happened to go to an evening function at a pizza place with him and his comrades who fought. A book was written by Jake Tapper, an excellent book--I recommend it to all of my colleagues--about eight of their comrades who were killed. Here we are unable to make sure these young men and women serving in harm's way have the equipment, the training, and everything they need to defend this Nation. We are doing the men and women who are serving this Nation a great disservice, and the President did them a disservice when he said in the campaign: Not to worry, sequestration won't happen. The President of the United States said that. I didn't say it. The three of us traveled this country warning about the effects of sequestration. Of course, we now know the idea came from the White House. That is the blame game, and I will be glad to engage in this game. Can't we at least come to some agreement to prevent this? Are we going to lurch from one fiscal cliff to another? If we want to do that, that is one thing. General Odierno is one of the great leaders I have had the opportunity of knowing for many years. General Odierno, the Chief of Staff of the Army, a man who has decorations from here to there, said he cannot replace the men and women who are serving in Afghanistan under this sequestration because he doesn't have the ability to train their replacements. Isn't that an alarm for us? We are going to go through a charade here. In a little while we are going to have a vote on the Democratic proposal, and it will not get sufficient votes; and the same thing here on this side, and the clock will tick. Tomorrow, on the last day, the President is going to call people over to the White House to see if we can address it. Where was he in the last year? Again, I am not taking the floor today for the blame game. I am pleading for the men and women who are serving this Nation in harm's way who every single day have a hell-of-a-lot tougher time than we do. Can't we do something on their behalf to sit down with the President of the United States, who is Commander in Chief, and get this issue resolved before we do great damage to our national security? I thank Senator Ayotte for her proposal. It contains real reductions in spending so we don't have to go through this sequestration. On the one side, now we have a choice between ``flexibility,'' which nobody really knows exactly what that means--and on the other side, obviously, a proposal that really bears no relevance to the issue that faces us. I thank my colleagues for the time. If I sound a little emotional on this issue, it is because I am. It seems to me we, at least on this issue of national security and the men and women who serve our Nation, should come together. I stand ready to put everything on the table to prevent what could be, in the words of the departing Secretary of Defense, a devastating blow to our ability to defend this Nation in what I could make an argument are the most dangerous times. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. My question is, does the Senator think the American people appreciate and understand what this does to the lives of the American men and women who are serving? For example, those who are serving on that aircraft carrier they said was going to deploy for many months and was cancelled at the last minute, the training plans which are now going to be cancelled, the deployments which will be changed-- not to mention the massive layoffs in the defense industry, which sometimes are not easily replaceable. That is my question.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today I honor an exceptional public servant and patriot. After a lifetime of service to our Nation, Richard D. ``Rick'' DeBobes is retiring from his position as staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee, effective February 28, 2013. On this occasion, it is fitting to recognize Rick's 50 years of uniformed and civilian service to our Nation. Rick began his career as a naval officer, serving 26 exemplary years in jobs that included directing the International Negotiations Branch of the Navy's Judge Advocate General, commanding the Naval Legal Service Office, and finally serving as the legal adviser and legislative assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where he helped craft policies that have shaped our modern joint military force. Such a career, in and of itself, illustrates a commitment to causes greater than self-interest. Rick's devotion to service and excellence continued long after he left active duty. Upon his retirement from the Navy, he joined the Senate Armed Services Committee as counsel, advising committee members on issues relating to national security strategy, defense policy, foreign affairs, and Department of Defense organization and management. Rick's authoritative analysis and counsel to members distilled complex issues and often served as a basis for common understanding and problem solving. Few were surprised then, when in 2003 he was asked by Senator Carl Levin to be the committee's staff director. Ten years on, the wisdom of that selection is evident. Rick's steady management of the committee, amidst strong personalities and throughout the occasionally animated policy debates, has yielded the admiration of his professional colleagues in Congress and the Department of Defense, and a long record of legislative success. 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 Rick DeBobes for his outstanding leadership in uniform and in Congress, and his unceasing support for members of the Armed Forces. I wish him and his wife Margaret ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I have to ask for regular order.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the recent testimony of former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman before the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee of House Armed Services Committee. In my view, Secretary Lehman presents important testimony that highlights the need for maintaining a strong maritime defense capability in an increasingly uncertain international security environment.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to join in a colloquy with my colleague from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, there seems to be a lot of back and forth and misinformation about where various Senators stand on the issue of the Hagel nomination. I have a statement I will give in a few minutes about why I am opposed to Senator Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, but I think it is important to make a couple points. One is that the distinguished chairman and I were here back in 1988. In 1988, on December 16, John Tower was nominated to be Secretary of Defense. On January 25, 1989, his confirmation hearings began. On February 2, 1989, the committee postponed the confirmation vote after allegations were raised. On February 8, the committee vote was delayed again until February. February 23, he was voted out of the committee. March 10 was the time where the Senate rejected the nomination by 53 to 47. I was there. I saw. One of the worst things I have ever seen in the history of the Senate, the way they dragged out Senator John Tower--a good and decent man's reputation with allegation after allegation, all of which turned out to be false. So I would like to inform my colleagues, this is not the first time we have had a delay in the confirmation of a Secretary of Defense. I will be glad to go over what I saw, including allegations that were thrown over the transom day after day, week after week. They destroyed a good and decent man in Senator John Tower. So the allegation that somehow we are dragging this out or delaying it, it is not the first time in history, I will say to my dear friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Having said that, there are still questions outstanding. I believe Senators have the right to have those questions answered. The Senator from South Carolina and I, the Senator from New Hampshire had a response from the President today on the question we had, but there are other questions. But I think during the break is sufficient time to get any additional questions answered. I will vote in favor of cloture on the day we get back. I believe my colleagues would also--a number of my colleagues would do the same. I think that is a sufficient period of time to get answers to outstanding questions. I think Senator Hagel, after that period of time, deserves a cloture vote and an up-or-down vote on his nomination. I ask if my colleague wants to comment.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Tennessee, who also, in my view, is one of the great protectors of the Senate, preserving its tradition and customs--I would ask if he has a view on this issue. I wish to repeat: I would vote for cloture. The Senator from South Carolina would vote for cloture. I would be interested in the view of the Senator from Tennessee on this whole issue.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I note that the present occupant of the chair is familiar with the rigors of this process as well. So I think it is important to note. Again, I wish to say that it is one thing to support or oppose a nominee, but I do not believe a nominee deserves a dragged-out process. I think the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Massachusetts would agree with me; that it might be a disincentive in the future for well-qualified men and women who want to serve, who see a process that is dragged out and allegations made and requirements for disclosure that frankly are not required. I note the presence of the majority leader on the floor, so I would like to filibuster for an hour or so. I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object. I will not object, I will just respond to my friend. He is my dear friend. I did not note that sense of urgency for 3 months when John Tower's nomination was held in limbo by the then-majority Democrats. The Secretary of Defense post was vacant at that time as well. So this is not the first time in history a Secretary of Defense position has been vacant. Again, I hope we can get this resolved, move forward. I think the Senator from Michigan, my friend, understands we can get this issue resolved on the day we return from the recess. Certainly, there are, I believe, sufficient votes to invoke cloture at that time.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I always enjoy some exchanges with my friend, the chairman. But the fact is, as the chairman knows, that was delayed and delayed and delayed. A new allegation came in, it was delayed. A new allegation came in, it was delayed. All those allegations turned out to be false. I will not rewrite history anymore, except to say it was one of the more shameful chapters, in my view, in the history of the Senate. Again, I thank him. I am confident that within 1 week or so we will probably have this vote completed. I do not object to the unanimous consent request.