John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow Senator Mikulski.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland as always for her usual courtesy, and I think she had a very important message. I appreciate not only the words themselves but her eloquence and passion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from South Carolina be included in a colloquy during my remarks.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I, as I believe all of us have, just finished watching the President's remarks at--I guess it was the Executive Office Building. I am not sure yet, as I sort out my impressions of the President's remarks, whether to be angry or to be saddened. I have been around this town for a number of years, and as is well known, I had more than an academic interest in the Presidency. I have watched a lot of Presidents, going back to President Reagan, from the standpoint of being a Member of Congress, and I have seen these other crises as we have gone through them--whether it was the potential shutdown of the government when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, or the crisis of the debt limit expiring, and a number of others. It is sometimes, unfortunately, the way we do business here. But I must say, at a time of crisis, on New Year's Eve, when at midnight, at least, certain actions will take place or have to be planned to take place, today we had the President of the United States having a cheerleading, ridiculing-of-Republicans exercise in speaking to the people of the United States of America. As I have watched other Presidents address crises, the way they were able to address them and resolve them--with Presidential leadership, and that is why we elect Presidents, to lead--was by calling the leaders of both parties to the White House to sit around the table and do the negotiations and the discussions. Sometimes concessions have to be made; compromises have to be made. But what did the President of the United States just do? He kind of made funny--he made a couple of jokes, laughed about how people are going to be here for New Year's Eve, and then sent a message of confrontation to the Republicans. I believe he said: If they think they are going to do that, then they have another thought coming. I guess I have to wonder--and I think the American people have to wonder--whether the President wants this issue resolved or is it to his short-term political benefit for us to go over the cliff. I can assure the President of the United States that historians judge Presidents by their achievements. Now, we all read the polls. We, Republicans, know what is in the polls; that is, the majority of the American people--50-some percent-- support and approve of this President. We also see the approval ratings of Congress--10, 11, 12, 9, 15 percent, whatever it is. I haven't seen one that high lately. But historians judge Presidents by what happens on their watch, and this President just made comments which clearly-- clearly--will antagonize Members of the House. We are a bicameral government. His comments will clearly antagonize them, and once we get an agreement--and I appreciate that negotiations have been going on in the Senate between the majority leader and the Republican leader-- whatever is done and whatever is agreed to has to be ratified by the House of Representatives, men and women who were elected on promising their constituents they wouldn't raise taxes. Now, whether they should have made that commitment or not, whether that was the right thing to do, the fact is that is what they said. So the President basically, in his talk to whatever group of people he was talking to--who were laughing and cheering and applauding as we are on the brink of this collapse, of the incredible problem this creates for men and women all over, all of our citizens--said to the Republicans on both sides of the aisle, but particularly the House of Representatives: Take it or leave it. That is not the way Presidents should lead. These are draconian effects. Now, whether we should be at this cliff is a discussion for scholars in years to come, but we are where we are. Frantic discussions are going on. They went on into the middle of the night last night. So what is the President of the United States doing? In the middle of this, as, hopefully, they were reaching an agreement--and I understand there was only one major issue remaining--he comes out and calls people together and has a group standing behind him while he laughs and jokes and ridicules Republicans. Why? Why would the President of the United States want to do that? I want to say a word about sequestration. Now, sequestration is about to kick in. The Pentagon and our Defense Department are like a giant oil tanker. We have to turn it around in a very difficult and slow manner because they have to make plans, and they have to have contingencies. They have to have procurement of weapons, and we have to do all the things that are necessary to make sure our men and women who are serving in the military are the best trained, the best equipped, and most professional in the world--and they are. But when we look at sequestration, the Secretary of Defense says it will decimate our ability to defend this Nation. Shouldn't the President be concerned about that, about what his own Secretary of Defense is saying and what his own selection of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is saying? Instead, he kind of jokes around and tells people they are going to be here for New Year's Eve. That is not the way to lead this Nation. So I come to the floor and say to my colleagues, we need to get this done. We all know we need to get this done. If we go over the cliff, we are going to disappoint the people we are elected to represent, and we will disappoint them mightily, as we already have. But I also say it is the time for Presidential leadership. It is time to stop the cheerleading; it is time to stop the campaigning. The President won. We all know that. He won fair and square. Isn't it now time to govern? Isn't the best way to govern to sit down with people from the other party and from both Houses and say this is an issue we must resolve for the good of the American people? So I hope, again, the President will spend some time with the leaders of both parties in the Oval Office sitting down and ironing this out before the people of this country pay a very heavy price. Now, my friend from South Carolina was around when we almost went over the cliff the last time, as we were about to shut down the government, and there were all kinds of consequences. But we pulled back from the brink, after almost going over it, and it was the most serious of all these that I have seen. I guess I would ask him, is it not true, in our experience, that Presidents, whether they be Republican or Democrat, no matter what party or affiliation, going back to the famous Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill relationship, where they sat down together and they saved Social Security for about 25 years-- and it was tough medicine, but they did it together. The President of the United States basically dismissed Social Security and Medicare from his list of priorities. As my friend from Tennessee pointed out, we have a $16 trillion debt. For us to say we are not going to do anything about spending when we all know that spending is the biggest problem we have in this agreement--again, that is throwing kerosene on the fire that is on the other side of the Capitol, and that is my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have committed and pledged to their constituents that we will end this hemorrhaging that we call spending which has given us the greatest debt in the history of this country. So I guess I would ask my colleague from South Carolina, who is usually very modest and reticent in explaining his views, particularly in various media outlets, what is his view on this situation.

Mr. McCAIN. I would say to my friend, first of all, we have had some meetings of a bipartisan fashion to try and improve the process so that we can move legislation forward. I believe the issue before us right now--at nearly 3 p.m., 9 hours from midnight and we still have not reached an agreement--and the longer it takes for us to reach agreement, the less time we will have examining it and the less time we will have before voting on it. As the Senator from South Carolina said: We can't keep doing business like this. And we can't. But on this particular issue, I want to express, as I began, my disappointment in the President in having a cheerleading rally when we should be sitting down together and resolving this issue. That is what I have seen other Presidents, Republican and Democrat, do. I hope, now that the President has made his statement with his cheering section, that now he would sit down--as Presidents have and should--and work to hammer out this agreement and agreements in the future. The Presidential campaign is over. He won. Congratulations. Now let's get down to the serious business of governing this country in a bipartisan fashion.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor for the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his deeply moving and heartfelt sentiments concerning our dear and departed comrade, Senator Inouye, a unique man. Never will the Senate of the United States of America see his like again. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his very important and moving tribute. Amendment No. 3355 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up pending amendment No. 3355.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill for her patience during this difficult time of many amendments and other priorities. I thank her for her patience and her courtesy as well as our Republican manager, the Senator from Mississippi. This amendment is very minor in nature when we look at a $60 billion piece of legislation. But I think it has a certain amount of symbolism associated with it, which is why I bring it up, symbolism we all want to respond to an emergency and a tragedy such as befell the people of the Northeast as a result of this terrible hurricane and ongoing tragedies that continue. Our hearts go out to them. It is clearly an obligation of the Congress and President to do whatever is necessary to provide what comfort and relief we can to them. It is one of the obligations of government we all recognize. But also, over the years, I have seen the tendency as one of these things happens, as they do from time to time, tragically, that we have a tendency to put money in things we otherwise would not get so easily or funds for programs that have nothing to do with addressing the tragedy or just an excess of funds in an act of generosity on the part of the Congress of the United States. That might be OK--might be OK under certain circumstances, but we have a $16 trillion debt. To appropriate more money without adequate justification for doing so is something that, sooner or later, we will have to stop. I guess it was Margaret Thatcher who once said the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. My friends and colleagues, sooner or later we are going to run out of other people's money because they are going to stop lending it to us because we have a $16 trillion debt. Even though this is a relatively minor item, I think it is kind of symbolic of what we do around here. It is concerning the $58 million we are going to spend for the Department of Agriculture Forest Restoration Program for planting trees on private property. Let me make that clear. We are going to spend $58 million for planting trees on private property. This amendment would strike that provision. This tree planting program called the Forest Restoration Program is actually a farm bill subsidy that was created in 2008. It is run by a relatively unknown government office called the Farm Service Agency, whatever that is, which was primarily responsible for managing crop insurance in rural counties. Under the program, ``nonindustrial private forest landowners'' can apply for up to $500,000 for a range of forest restoration activities, including tree planting. Why is that the role of the Federal Government? Why is it the role of the Federal Government to pay for trees to be planted on private property, much less funded in a bill to repair the damage done by a hurricane. There is nothing in the supplemental that limits the funding to just Hurricane Sandy. Under this bill, the $58 million can be used anywhere. According to the U.S. Forest Service, approximately 45 percent of all forest land in the United States qualifies as ``nonindustrial private forestland.'' These lands are owned by approximately 11 million landowners, many of whom have holdings of fewer than 50 acres on average. We know this program has cash. It received $11 million from Congress in 2010. It received an additional $28 million in the 2011 Omnibus Appropriations Act, more than doubling the program. The Senate is proposing to double this subsidy again to $58 million. We know from the U.S. Department of Agriculture records the majority of funding has been used in past years for wind damaged trees in Mississippi, Georgia, and Tennessee. There remains an unobligated $15 million in the program's account. I say to my colleagues, $58 million here, $58 million there, sooner or later it runs into real money. In fact, it runs into a $16 trillion debt. I come from a State, I say, Mr. President, where we love trees. We have not enough of them. In some parts of our State we have a lot of them. In some parts of our State it is kind of bleak--but beautiful. But I am not asking for any money for private owners in my State to plant trees. I think they can do that themselves. Again, it is only $58 million. Maybe I am taking up the time of the Senate when we are talking about $60 billion, but it is an example, an outstanding example, of the kind of excess that does not have the priority to spend another $58 million of the taxpayers' money. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we debate the Hurricane Sandy Supplemental bill this week, it is critical that we ensure taxpayer dollars go to help those impacted by this devastating storm and not toward spending projects that are wasteful or not a priority at this time. This bill, unfortunately, goes way beyond emergency aid and funds projects that have little or nothing to do with meeting the immediate needs of individuals misplaced by Hurricane Sandy. At a time when we face ongoing trillion-dollar deficits, and a $16.3 trillion debt, we cannot justify this type of spending. While some of the projects included in this bill may hold merit on their own, they should go through the normal budget and appropriations process, where Congress has time to vet the need for such spending requests. To highlight this point, the Congressional Budget Office--CBO-- examined both the Senate bill and the administration's request and found that that 64 percent of the funds appropriated under the Sandy Supplemental will not be spent until fiscal years 2015-2022 and after, therefore, raising concerns about the rush to spend $60.4 billion without any attempt to pay for it. Just two weeks ago, FEMA Director Fugate told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that the Disaster Relief Fund currently has enough money and will not need additional funding until the spring 2013. CBO's assessment, combined with the statement of Director Fugate clearly shows us that we need to pass a Sandy Supplemental bill that only includes prioritized disaster aid funding. As I have examined this bill over this week, I have found numerous examples of questionable spending including billions to replace `Federal assets' damaged by the storm, including automobiles owned by the Federal Government. The Federal Government currently owns or leases over 660,000 vehicles--surely we can find replacements within our current inventory. Shouldn't we focus on providing relief directly to those still trying to rebuild their lives before replacing a bureaucrat's car? The new substitute also includes language expanding levee construction to include West North Central States, such as North Dakota. It also includes $2 million to repair damage to the roofs of museums in Washington, D.C., while many in Hurricane Sandy's path still have no permanent roof over their own heads, $150 million for fisheries as far away from the storm's path as Mississippi and Alaska, $125 million for the Department of Agriculture's Emergency Watershed Protection program, which helps restore watersheds damaged by wildfires and droughts for areas including Colorado, $15 million for NASA facilities, though NASA itself has called its damage from the hurricane `minimal.' On the day after the storm hit, NASA's Wallops Island put out a statement stating that ``an initial assessment team surveyed roads and facilities at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility today reporting a number of downed trees but otherwise minimal impact in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.'' To me, this raises a red flag that this NASA funding may not be an immediate emergency. There is $58 million for the USDA ``Forest Restoration Program'' for planting trees on private property. This program is actually a Farm Bill subsidy program that's run by a relatively unknown agency called the ``Farm Service Administration,'' which is primarily responsible for managing crop insurance. Under this program, private landowners with about 50 acres of land can apply for up to $500,000 in free grants for tree planting activities. Not only is this a non-emergency need, there's nothing in the supplemental that limits the funding to Hurricane Sandy areas. Under this bill, this $58 million can be used just about anywhere. There is $336 million for taxpayer-supported AMTRAK without a detailed plan for how the money will be spent. While some of the funding will go for repairs, money will also go to increasing passenger capacity to New York and future mitigation efforts. In a two page letter from AMTRAK that gives a broad description of how the $336 million will be spent, almost all of it falls under funding for improvements and future capital projects. This includes $191 million for AMTRAK to start design and construction of new Hudson River Tunnels, as part of the Gateway Program. According to AMTRAK, the Gateway Program, which was started in 2011 and is projected to cost over $13 billion, is ``a comprehensive program of infrastructure improvements to increase track, tunnel, bridge, and station capacity serving New York City that will improve current assets and allow the eventual doubling of passenger trains into Manhattan.'' I am not here to debate the merits or the need for new tunnels, but this is clearly a capital improvement project--unrelated to Hurricane Sandy. AMTRAK is up and running so it is not apparent why this funding is deemed ``emergency'' spending and included in this spending package. Keep in mind, AMTRAK receives roughly $1 billion in annual funding. Future mitigation projects should be debated in next year's budget process. There is $5.3 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers--more than the Army Corps' annual budget--with little clarity on how the money will be spent. Included in the Senate bill is $50 million in funding for more studies, which will most definitely lead to additional Army Corp projects and a new Task Force established by Executive Order. More projects are not something the Army Corps can handle. They are currently experiencing a backlog of construction and maintenance projects of approximately $70 billion. Furthermore, a 2010 report released by the Government Accountability Office noted that carryover funds have increased ``due to the large amount of supplemental funding the Corps has received in recent years.'' Clearly, supplemental spending on the Army Corps has not paid off. There is $10 million improve weather forecasting capabilities and infrastructure. The bill also includes roughly $13 billion for future disaster mitigation activities and studies, without identifying a single way to pay for it. While I understand that Mitigation is important to save money when future natural disasters occur, there is no justification to include these projects in this ``emergency'' spending bill. By waiting to fund these projects until next year during the normal budget and appropriations process, we will have a better understanding of the path forward and reduce the possibility of waste fraud and abuse. As a nation, we are confronted with trillion dollar deficits, out of control spending in Washington and the imminent approach of an economically, devastating fiscal cliff. We do need to come to the aid of those who lost everything in Hurricane Sandy and are struggling to get their lives back together. Congress, however, cannot continue down this road of irresponsible spending. We must pass a true disaster spending bill that only spends money on disaster recovery and response, not pet projects.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I note the presence of the Senator from Kentucky on the floor. I understand he seeks recognition for 10 minutes, and I ask that he be recognized at this time.

Mr. McCAIN. Under the scenario as envisioned by the argument made by the Senator from Kentucky that if an American citizen is overseas, as al-Awlaki was in Yemen, and we took a drone and killed him, which was a decision made by the President of the United States----

Mr. McCAIN. But if al-Awlaki had been in the United States of America, a citizen engaged in the same activities that justified him being killed, then Mr. al-Awlaki would have been entitled to his Miranda rights, a trial by jury, habeas corpus, all that as if he were treated as an American citizen. I don't think many people would quite understand that distinction of geography.

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield further, there is every indication in the Middle East and around the world that we see that al- Qaida is on the way back, far from being defeated. I just wish to make an additional comment to my friend, Senator Levin, the chairman, whom I have had the honor of bringing these bills to the floor with and working together with for 25 years. I was tempted to leave it unresponded to, but a statement the Senator from Kentucky made: They were sneakier than we were--I have to say to the chairman, I don't think the chairman has ever conducted our committee and our deliberations and our work on the floor and in conference in any way as being sneaky. I categorically reject that kind of comment, and I don't think it is worthy of the performance the Senator from Michigan has provided to this committee.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas for his enormous contributions to the deliberations and work of our committee. I understand the frustration he feels, and we have promised, as Senator Levin and I have promised a number of Members on both sides of the Capitol, we will have extensive hearings on this whole issue of Guard- Air Force relationships and force structure for the 21st century. We appreciate his commitment to his outstanding members of the Guard. Mr. President, I rise to support the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act conference report. This will be the 51st consecutive year the Congress will pass legislation authorizing the budget of the Department of Defense and supporting our men and women in uniform. I thank the members of the Armed Services Committee for their hard work, especially my colleague and friend, Senator Carl Levin. Carl and I have worked together for many years on this committee, the last 6 as chairman and ranking member. In that time, Carl has demonstrated a thoughtful approach to defense oversight and legislating. His genial disposition--which I believe complements my own temperament well--masks resolute support for a strong national defense and a tenacious will ensure that defense dollars are wisely spent. Carl, you are a trusted partner and a patriot. This conference report is the product of 10 months of legislative effort, including 53 hearings on the full range of national security priorities. After marking up the President's defense budget request in May, the committee unanimously reported a bill to the Senate on June 4. Six months to the day later, the full Senate passed the bill 98 to 0. In a hopeful sign of the return of regular order to the Chamber, we passed the bill after 33 hours of debate and an open process that resulted in 397 amendments filed, of which 143 were included in the Senate-passed bill. Our use of an open amendment process on the Senate floor demonstrated that when it comes to addressing national defense, the Senate can still work together in a bipartisan manner. However, before we engage in too much self-congratulation, we should ask ourselves why we are concluding the most important annual authorization bill 3 months after the fiscal year began, and why we have yet to enact a single appropriations bill for any Department or agency of government. The Congress has been caught in so many political impasses of late that we have effectively abrogated our responsibility to provide for the timely authorization and appropriation of Federal programs. The result is increased cost, decreased efficiency, and our willful enabling of dysfunction in government. We can and must do better. The Defense authorization conference report before the Senate provides for the continued readiness of our Armed Forces and the well- being of servicemembers and their families. It authorizes pay and benefits, research and development, weapons procurement, and military construction projects, and contains provisions designed to improve acquisition and contracting. It also provides the resources, training, equipment, and authorities necessary for our military to continue supporting the Afghanistan National Security Forces as they assume increased responsibility throughout Afghanistan. This conference report also contains tough sanctions aimed at curbing Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Iran continues its reckless ways in pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Just recently, the IAEA confirmed that Iran is expected to double the number of centrifuges at its underground enrichment site to 1,400. One provision in this report, originally sponsored by Senators Kirk and Menendez, designates Iran's energy, shipping, and ship-building sectors as entities of proliferation concern, subjecting many transactions with these entities to sanction. It would impose sanctions on persons supplying to Iran certain listed materials relevant to these sectors, to certain Iranian Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, or to be used in connection with certain Iranian military programs. Finally, it would designate the Iranian state broadcasting company as a human rights abuser for airing forced confessions and show trials; preventing other entities from doing business with it; and banning any travel to the United States. This conference report also contains a provision that authorizes an increase of up to 1,000 marines for the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group. The tragic events in Benghazi on September 11 demonstrate that the security environment facing our diplomatic corps is as dangerous as ever. This provision will provide for the end-strength and resources necessary to support an increase in Marine Corps security at locations identified by the Secretary of State to be at risk of terrorist attack. Such an increase was also recommended by the Accountability Review Board--the independent panel convened by Secretary Clinton to investigate the events surrounding the Benghazi attack. The murder of innocents continues in Syria, with over 40,000 people murdered by the Assad regime. This conference report contains a provision that requires the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to submit a comprehensive report identifying the limited military activities that could deny or degrade the ability of the Assad regime to use air power against civilians and opposition groups. This provision explicitly notes that it neither authorizes the use of military force nor serves as a declaration of war against Syria. In the area of military personnel, the conference report provides a 1.7-percent pay raise for servicemembers, and over 30 types of incentives aimed at strengthening enlistment and retention programs. It reinforces Department of Defense programs to prevent sexual assault and will improve the care and management of wounded warriors and those transitioning to civilian life after military service. The report also recognizes that, in an era of fiscal austerity, the Department of Defense must reduce costs wherever possible, including force structure by, for example, approving nearly all of the fiscal year 2013 increment of the President's proposed reduction of 123,900 military personnel over the next 5 years. But it also requires a similar reduction in civilian and contractor personnel over that same time period. In addition, the report acknowledges a revised plan by the Air Force to reduce its force structure and retire or divest military aircraft in order to respond to defense budget cuts proposed by the administration. While my State of Arizona fared better than many States, the Air Force's plan includes a cost-saving proposal to convert the manning of an A-10 Warthog training squadron based at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson from the active component to the Reserve, resulting in a decrease of approximately 130 personnel assigned to the base. I support the need for the military services to find ways to reduce costs and realize that we all will have to bear the burden of the impact of reduced defense spending. Despite modest improvements in recent defense acquisitions, the Department has much work to do to improve its ability to identify and reduce waste. This conference report contains a number of provisions intended to improve oversight on defense contracting, including helping to detect and prevent human trafficking in government contracting. There are also provisions that would help ensure that the Department becomes fully auditable by 2017, as required under law, while improving procurement of the business systems it needs to become auditable. Other provisions help reform how the Federal Government conducts procurement during contingency operations and help ensure that certain whistleblowers who identify waste, fraud, and abuse are protected. The conference report also increases transparency into shipbuilding programs, including Ford Class aircraft carriers and Littoral Combat Ships. Another important provision in this report addresses cybersecurity, by requiring consultation with Congress if a decision is made to establish U.S. Cyber Command as a unified command and that defense contractors notify the Department of Defense of any network intrusions. Still another provision in the report requires that, following a decision by the President to reduce U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff submit to Congress his assessment of the risk of that force reduction to our mission and security interests. This report also requires the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a report on the investment plan and resources needed to carry out the U.S. strategy in Asia. I remain uncertain that the Department's plan for the realignment of U.S. military forces in the Asia Pacific Region is adequately supported by budgets and resources in future years. The Center for Strategic and International Studies released a report in August 2012 that raised concerns about whether the plans and strategy proposed by the Department earlier this year are adequately supported by budgets and resources in future years. Another provision helps protect the Navy's rich tradition of vessel naming. The name the Navy selects for a vessel should not be tarnished in any way by controversy. Unfortunately, controversy has surrounded some of the Navy's recent vessel-naming choices. This bill, therefore, sets forth appropriate and necessary standards, grounded in historical practice, to guide the Secretary of the Navy's decisions on future vessel naming, and requires that the Secretary seek the approval of the congressional defense committees before announcing or assigning a vessel's name. A particularly important provision gives priority to the Forest Service and Coast Guard to acquire surplus Air Force aircraft, allowing the Forest Service to strengthen its fire suppression capability. This conference report also directs the Secretary of Defense to designate assignment of military officers as instructors on the faculty of West Point, the Naval Academy or the Air Force Academy as the equivalent of a joint duty assignment to satisfy joint duty requirements. Finally, this report extends for another year important prohibitions and restrictions on the transfer and release of military detainees from Guantanamo, and the construction or modification of facilities in the U.S. to house them. It also establishes congressional notification requirements for military detainees held on naval vessels and for the release of third-country nationals held in military detention in Afghanistan. In addition, it clearly affirms that nothing in last year's defense authorization bill or the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force restricts or denies a person's existing habeas corpus rights or any other constitutional right. As we look forward to Christmas, I remind my fellow Members to remember the beneficiaries of this legislation--the men and women of our Armed Forces, who serve our Nation bravely and selflessly. Passing this conference report is the very least we can do for so many who are willing to give all they have to defend our Nation. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the conference report of the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. Finally, I would like to thank the ``small but mighty'' Senate Armed Services Committee Republican staff, who have worked tirelessly and effectively in support of me and our members. These loyal staff members, many of whom have served on the committee staff for many years, deserve our sincere appreciation for their dedication to national security. They are Adam Barker, Pablo Carrillo, Chris Brose, Lauren Davis, Church Hutton, Daniel Lerner, Greg Lilly, Elizabeth Lopez, Lucian Niemeyer, Bryan Parker, Ann Elise Sauer, and Diana Tabler. Mr. President, again, with great reluctance, I thank our staff who have done such a wonderful job. They really have done great. As I say, I am very reluctant to admit it, but we could not have gotten here without their hard work on both sides of the aisle. Alternative Fuels

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that LTCs Todd Ladwig and Victor Glover, Navy fellows in my office, be allowed floor privileges for the duration of the debate on the conference report of H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, one of the most overused quotes about this town is Harry Truman's observation years ago that if you want a friend in Washington, go out and get a dog. I have spent a good many years here now. I suppose there is a little truth in that advice. Some Washington friendships are a little like temporary alliances between nations that for a brief period of time have mutual interests or enemies. But not all friendships here are like that, not all of them. Today I say a formal fond farewell to a departing colleague whose friendship has been and will always be one of the greatest treasures of my life. My friend Senator Joe Lieberman is retiring from the Senate after 24 years of service. Of course, he is not leaving, nor will he ever leave, the affections of those of us who have come to value him so highly as a statesman and as a friend, but we will not see him around the place as much. His office will not be near ours. We will not hear him speak from this floor or in committee hearings. We will not have the daily benefit of his counsel and his example. We will miss his contributions to the Senate. We will miss his good humor, his wisdom, and sincerity, especially in those moments when we find ourselves again wrapped around the axle of partisanship and politics has taken primacy over the Nation's interests, when tempers are frayed and we are consumed with putting each other at a disadvantage. That is when we will miss him the most, on those occasions when Joe's thoughtfulness and patriotism stirred him to remind us again, as he did earlier this week, that the public trust and not our party's fortunes is our most important responsibility. Joe's presence, his wit and courtesy and kindness have improved the conviviality of our institution. But more than that, he has set an example that I think our constituents surely wish more of us would emulate. It is his conscience and devotion to America, not his party affiliation, that has inspired his work. He has been a very accomplished legislator and a recognized leader on national security issues. He is a nationally prominent politician, majority leader in his State senate, the attorney general of the State of Connecticut, elected to the Senate of the United States four times, a vice presidential nominee in the year 2000, a candidate for President, and I should probably add nearly a nominee for vice president again. That he managed to achieve such prominence while being the least partisan politician I know is a credit to his character and to the exemplary quality of his public service and to the public's too often frustrated desire for leaders who seek office to do something, not just to be someone. He has been a tireless advocate for the rights of the oppressed, the misfortunate, the disenfranchised, and tireless too in his concern for the security of the United States, for the strength of our alliances, the excellence of our Armed Forces, and the global progress of our values. He came here to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with his God. It is hard to find anyone here who does not like and admire Joe. He is impossible to dislike, even if one only knows him a little. Most of his detractors seem to be people who do not know him and who tend to view people very strictly through the perspectives of their ideology and partisan identity. The only thing to resent about Joe Lieberman is that he is so damn considerate of everyone that you can find yourself feeling a little ashamed when he catches you raising your voice to someone or behaving in other ways that fall short of his unfailing graciousness. He is not an easy example to emulate. I have fallen short of his standard more often than I care to concede. But I know, as I suspect most of us know, that our constituents deserve and our country needs more public officials who keep their priorities in the right order, as Joe always has, and who offer their respect for their colleagues without expecting anything in return but our respect. We spent a lot of time together, Joe and I. We have traveled many thousands of miles together. We have attended scores of international conferences together, met with dozens of world leaders, with human rights activists, and the occasional autocrat. We have visited war zones, shared the extraordinary experience with equal parts gratitude and awe of talking with and hearing from the Americans who risk everything so the rest of us may be secure in our freedom. I have been able to study Joe at close quarters. He has never failed to impress me as a dedicated public servant, a loyal friend, a considerate gentleman, a kind soul, and very good company. I have also been privileged to witness the sincerity of his faith. I have awaken in the middle of the night on a long plane ride to find Joe in his prayer shawl, talking to the God he tries very hard to serve faithfully every day. I have witnessed the lengths he goes to always keep the Sabbath, and occasionally I have even filled in as his Shabbos goy. I have enjoyed every minute of our travels together. He is a quality human being, and time spent in his company is never wasted. I have worked with Joe on many issues and opposed him on more than a few. But I have always been just as impressed by him when we disagree as I am when we agree. He is always the same: good natured, gracious, and intent on doing his best by the people who sent him and the country he loves. He is leaving the Senate, and I am going to miss him a lot. But I doubt any of the many friends he has made here will let him stray far from our attention. We will still rely on his wise counsel and warm friendship. I know I will. I hope we are not done traveling together. I hope to see him in other conferences and meetings abroad. I want to go back on the road and learn from him and just pretend he has not left the place that brought us together. He is as fine a friend as I have ever had and irreplaceable in my life and I cannot let him go. Thank you, Joe, for all you have done for me; for your many kindnesses, your counsel, your company, and for teaching me how to be a better human being. I will see you again soon. I yield the floor

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 speak as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would request we do as usual in morning business, back and forth, if that is all right, and I could follow the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is customary in the days before Congress adjourns--and I am still hopeful this Congress will eventually, mercifully adjourn--for Members to offer farewells and testimonials to departing colleagues. I rise today to say a few words about a Senator who is leaving us and whose example I esteem and friendship I have relied on for many years. Senator Jon Kyl and I have served the State of Arizona together for a quarter of a century since Jon was first elected to the other body and I to the Senate in 1986. We have worked together in this body for the last 18 years. That is a long time to get to know someone with whom you share responsibilities to the State we are honored to represent, and I have gotten to know Jon very well over these many years. I can also say in all honesty that my admiration for him has grown every single day I have been privileged to serve with him. I share that admiration for Jon with the people of Arizona, who elected him to the Senate three times, and would have, I am sure, comfortably elected him to a fourth term had he sought reelection. Arizonans hold him in very high regard for a very obvious reason: He has been a very diligent, very effective advocate for their interests. I have observed him closely as we tended to issues that might seem arcane and unglamorous to Senators from other States but are among the most important and often the most contentious issues to Arizonans-- issues such as land exchanges and water rights settlements. I have never failed to be impressed by the qualities Jon brings to these matters--his unflappable patience, his tireless work ethic, his careful attention to detail, his determination to be fair to all parties involved, and to achieve results that are in the best interests of our State of Arizona. I have tried to learn from his example, and I wish I could say I have emulated him, but, regrettably, as Arizonans and my Senate colleagues can attest, I still possess a short supply of some of Jon's most conspicuous leadership qualities. His patience, for example, his meticulous preparation and thoroughness are, I am sorry to say, not qualities I will be remembered for, but they have been indispensable to the people of our State. It is fortunate for them and for me that States are represented by two Senators and that Arizonans have had Jon Kyl here to compensate for my shortcomings. Jon works harder than almost any Member of Congress I know. We all joke about how we are often required to vote on legislation before we have had time to read it. But it is a poorly kept secret that we rarely, if ever, read from preamble to conclusion any of the bills we consider, even if we have had months to do so. Jon does, though. He reads them. When you debate with him over legislation, you better know what you are talking about, because he does and he is almost always better prepared than you are not only to explain his argument but to explain yours as well. He often writes the bills he sponsors, work that most of us almost happily rely on staff to perform. He takes his responsibilities as the author of legislation literally, rather than figuratively, as most of us do. It is hard to imagine where he finds the time to hold himself to such exacting standards of responsibility, but he does, often working late into the night after the rest of us have gone home, when he reads bills and writes them and tends personally to the concerns of his constituents. He is a Senator's Senator. He is principled, purposeful, informed, collaborative, and able to get things done by cooperation and compromise without ever sacrificing the principles that motivate his public service. He would rather reason with opponents than insult them. He prefers accomplishments to acclaim. It is little wonder then why our caucus elected and reelected him to our leadership. He has the complete confidence of every one of us. He is an easy man to trust with leadership responsibilities. He is scrupulous in his attention to his responsibilities and fair-minded in use of authority. He has strong views on issues and advocates for them effectively. But if he can't persuade some members of our caucus to agree with him, he will do all he can to defend our rights to be heard and have our position considered fully by the Senate. I think Members on both sides of the aisle would testify to Jon's fairness, collegiality, and effectiveness. I think we would all testify too to the credit his service has reflected on the Senate, a place we all love but which we must admit doesn't always function as well or as congenially as we would like, a failing that has not escaped the notice of the American people. Were Jon the kind of politician who worried more about his press than his responsibilities to his constituents, his colleagues, and his country, I think many Americans would recognize him as the kind of Senator they wished there were more of here. It has been my privilege to work with Jon not only on issues of unique importance to the State of Arizona but on many of national importance. We worked together on comprehensive immigration reform in 2007. None of the sponsors of the legislation, including myself and my friend, the late Senator Kennedy, was more instrumental in forging the compromises necessary to put that bipartisan bill together or more diligent and effective in defending it in debate. I was running for President that year and often away from the Senate. In addition to all the work Jon did to write the bill with Senator Kennedy and others, and seek support for it in both Houses, he had to assume many of my responsibilities as well. He did a better job with them than I did, and though we fell short of success, Jon deserves none of the blame for failure and much of the credit for making the bill as broadly bipartisan as it was and for providing the framework for what will be the kind of compromise I hope and believe we will get to the President's desk in the next Congress. Longevity in public office isn't always that important a distinction. I have served one term more than Jon and for that minor accomplishment I am referred to as the senior Senator from Arizona. But honestly, I have always looked up to Jon as my senior. He has been my leader, my senior partner in much of the work we have done in Arizona, my friend, and one of the people I most look up to in this place, an example of selfless, capable, honorable public service. He is leaving the Senate, and he will have time now to spend with his lovely wife Caryll, his son and daughter and his grandchildren. He will have more time too to hike his beloved White Mountains. I envy him that. But I think we would all concede the Senate will miss him, and I will miss him particularly. Thank you, my friend, for your service, your example, and your friendship. It has been a privilege. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is the parliamentary situation in order so I could send an amendment to the desk? I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. This is McCain-Coburn amendment No. 3355. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Coburn be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 3355.