John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Hopefully, we will do that shortly. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. These amendments have all been cleared on this side.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 1 minute be added and that the Senator from Mississippi be recognized for that 1 minute.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3262, as modified.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I believe the Senator from Kentucky is here to speak on the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Connecticut be allowed 4 minutes, the Senator from Michigan be allowed 3 minutes, and I be allowed 2 minutes before the vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would point out again that section (d)(e) of this amendment says: No Authorization For Use Of Military Force.--Nothing in this section shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization for the use of force. And it will be in ``classified form.'' Yesterday, this was the front-page headline of the Washington Post: Obama Sternly Warns Syria. There is no doubt that as this conflict has dragged on and on, the risk of a wider conflict and terrible consequences can ensue. It is well known that Bashar Assad has a very large inventory of chemical weapons, including sarin gas, which is a deadly nerve agent. I am not predicting that the United States has to be involved, but there is very little doubt in anyone's mind that as this conflict escalates, the risk of spreading, the risk of greater jihadist involvement, the greater risk of problems on the borders of Lebanon, of Iraq, of Jordan increase. And if military action has to be taken in order, for example, to prevent sarin gas to be used, the Congress of the United States has to be involved. We have a thing called the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act expressly calls that Congress make decisions. The Congress needs to be informed. I believe all this amendment does is informs, in a classified manner, the Defense committees so that we will have the information necessary to understand the various eventualities that could result in this terribly, terribly escalating and deteriorating situation in Syria. As my friend from Connecticut said, 40,000 people have already been slaughtered. I think the U.S. Congress needs to be made aware not of what we should do but what we can do in case of that eventuality. I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment. I thank my colleagues. I thank the Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from Delaware, and, of course, the chairman of the committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise to explain the scope of, and intent behind, my amendment on naval vessel naming. Amendment No. 3054, as modified, to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013 is a direct response to recent criticism that the Secretary of the Navy has, in some instances, politicized the ship naming process. Since its establishment, the U.S. Navy has developed a rich tradition of vessel naming. Traditional sources for vessel names customarily encompassed categories such as geographic locations in the United States; historic sites, battles, and ships; naval and military heroes and leaders; and, other noted individuals who have made distinguished contributions to the Navy or our Nation's national security. The name the Navy selects for a vessel should reflect the very best of our Nation's and our Navy's great heritage. It should impart a sense of honor and serve as an inspiration for the vessel's crew. It should not, in any way, be tarnished by controversy. Unfortunately, controversy and criticism have surrounded some of the Secretary's recent vessel naming choices. This amendment seeks to avoid similar controversy in the future. It sets forth necessary and appropriate standards, grounded in historical practice, to guide the Secretary of the Navy's decisions on vessel naming. It requires that the Secretary assure the Senate and House Committees on Armed Services that the proposed vessel name comports with those standards 30 days before announcing or assigning a vessel's name. Under the procedure established by my amendment, I fully intend and expect that the Navy will not move forward with any vessel naming proposal, unless the Congressional defense committees approve. Much as the Department of Defense seeks prior approval for reprogramming requests, the Secretary of the Navy should secure the prior approval of the Congressional defense committees before announcing or implementing a vessel naming proposal. I take no joy or pride in this amendment, but believe it is necessitated by the spate of controversies over the last few years. I sincerely hope the amendment helps the U.S. Navy preserve the high standards it has traditionally employed for vessel naming. amendment no. 2943

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the chairman for his patience in allowing this legislation to be completed. I would note that there were 145 amendments and many recorded votes and good debate and discussion over very important issues. I also wish to say thank you to the majority leader. I wish to note the good work of the staff, showing again that work release programs can be successful.

Mr. McCAIN. Again, I thank the majority leader and my friend from Michigan. I do want to thank our staff who worked many long hours, long after we had shut down regular business. They continued to work through a total of 392 amendments that were filed on this legislation. I appreciate the hard work and the cooperative spirit that enabled us not only to dispose of the amendments, but also I heard no complaint from any Member that their amendment did not get the consideration they felt it deserved. I think that is pretty remarkable, and I thank them. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I want to thank Senator Levin and also the majority leader for giving us this time. Also I am in agreement that the time has come for cloture to be invoked, unfortunately. The total time of debate for this bill up to now has been 27 hours of debate and 371 amendments have been filed. We have disposed of 94 amendments, some by voice vote, some by rollcall vote. Of those amendments, many of them were offered by members of the committee, but a majority of them were offered by nonmembers of the Senate Armed Services Committee. So I think we have had a very inclusive and interesting debate and voting. I tell my friend Senator Levin, I have just been informed that the Senator from Kentucky has objected, voiced an objection to taking up any further unanimous consent agreements or votes. That means that there will be many amendments which have been approved by both sides which will now not be allowed to be offered or acted upon. It also means that if cloture is invoked, and I anticipate that cloture will be invoked--I understand that will be the second vote we have today--a number of those amendments that are nongermane, which we have cleared and would have been passed, will now be put aside. I will have a reading of a number of those amendments. There are 15 to 16 amendments that we would be ready shortly to approve. I am not exactly sure how many of them are nongermane in nature, which will fall when cloture is invoked. All I can say to my friend the chairman is that, again, I find it disappointing that one Member of the Senate feels his particular agenda is so important that it affects the lives, the readiness, and the capabilities of the men and women who are serving in the military and our ability to defend this Nation. I think it is hard to answer to the men and women in the military with this kind of behavior, but I will leave that up to the Senator from Kentucky to do so. In the meantime, I guess postcloture, we will continue with the legislation and try to get it completed. I have some guarded optimism that we may be able to do so. Mr. Chairman, I again apologize for what seems to have happened. Much to my dismay, it lends some credence to the argument that maybe we ought not to do business the way we are doing here in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. In the meantime, I would ask my friend if he agrees that colleagues with amendments they would like to debate or wish to come and talk about them--we are certainly open to that.

Mr. McCAIN. The amendments have been cleared by our side.

Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay the motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3124, as Further Modified

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the previous hold objection has been lifted, which has allowed us now to continue with this process. We lost 3 hours or so due to that, but we are still pleased to be able to make this progress. We will be having further cleared amendments, and hopefully we will have the end in sight after the cloture vote around 5:30. I thank my friend from Michigan.

Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3292 Senator Reed's amendment, amendment No. 3292, to the National Defense Authorization Act, seeks to further address the problem of predatory lenders taking advantage of members of our Armed Forces. Predatory lending practices are a serious problem for members of the Armed Services throughout the country, and I know it has impacted Vermonters serving in our Nation's military. This amendment further strengthens the Military Lending Act by extending enforcement authority to certain Federal Agencies. Senator Reed's amendment seeks to expand the universe of parties who can bring enforcement actions against predatory lenders, and therefore provide additional protections to the members of our Armed Services. Allowing additional Federal Agencies to bring enforcement actions helps ensure that fewer instances of predatory lending in the Armed Services community go unprosecuted. It is important to me, as it is to Senator Reed, that members of our Armed Services be free from harmful and deceptive lending practices. I am glad Senator Reed reached out to me on this amendment regarding the expansion of enforcement authority, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay the motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. McCAIN. They have been cleared by our side.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, we continue, after a few hours' pause today because of the objection of one Senator by long distance. But I am very confident, with the cooperation of our colleagues, we can finish this amendment process tomorrow, and I hope we can have the cooperation of all our colleagues. We have tried very hard to make sure every amendment gets consideration and is brought up. We have now approved well over 100 amendments, and I think most Members have had at least one amendment approved so far. So I hope we can continue the cooperation and we can finish this bill tomorrow. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Tomorrow, a vote is scheduled on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the upcoming vote. The first thing I think we ought to understand is this is not anybody's treaty. It is not President Obama's treaty. It is not John Kerry's treaty. It is not even Bob Dole's treaty, although he certainly is the person who has been deeply involved. The vote on the treaty is the right thing to do on its merits. It is important to note a list of veterans groups in support. I have not forgotten that 36 Republicans signed a letter opposing consideration of any treaty during the lameduck, but there is no reason we shouldn't have a vote. The letter says they would oppose consideration, but we did have the motion to proceed. Some may be worried about passing a treaty in the lameduck session. The argument has no basis in the Constitution or Senate practice. Since the 1970s alone, the Senate has approved treaties during lameduck sessions a total of 19 times. There is nothing special or different about lameduck sessions. So I would like to address a few of the misconceptions about the treaty that I keep hearing. It is true that the treaty establishes a committee, but that committee has exceedingly limited powers. It can review reports submitted by countries on the steps they have taken to implement the convention, and it can make nonbinding recommendations for additional steps, and that is it, nothing else. It can't require our Federal or State governments or courts to take any action. There is no threat to the United States or our sovereignty from the committee. With respect to abortion, this is a disabilities treaty. It has nothing to do with abortion and doesn't change our law on abortion in any way. Trying to turn this into an abortion debate is wrong on substance and bad politics. I have heard people say that ratifying the disabilities convention would take decisions out of parents' hands and let the U.N. or the Federal Government decide what is best for our children. That is just wrong. The treaty doesn't give the Federal Government or any State government new powers with regard to children with disabilities. The treaty cannot be used as a basis for a lawsuit in State or Federal court. Former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh made this crystal clear in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and in every conversation that I have had with him. I wouldn't support the treaty if it were any other way. So let's take a step back and look at how this looks if America rejects this treaty. China has joined. Russia has joined. We are the country that set the standards on rights of the disabled. We want everybody to play by international rules. We lose credibility if we turn around and refuse to participate in a treaty that merely asks other nations to live up to our standards and our rules. We received a letter from the blind Chinese dissident Chen Cuangcheng talking about the plight of the disabled around the world and what a strong message it would send if the United States ratified this treaty. There is no reason we can't say we lived up to our obligations. We need to step up and do the right thing--for Bob Dole and our veterans throughout the world. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of a letter from the internationally known blind Chinese dissident who, thank God, miraculously recently left China through the efforts of our State Department and our government.

Mr. McCAIN. I will read from his letter: When the United States enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act over twenty years ago, the idea of true equality for people with disabilities became a reality. Many nations have followed in America's footsteps and now are coming together under shared principles of equality, respect, and dignity for people with disabilities as entailed in the CRPD. The U.S.--which was instrumental in negotiating the CRPD--can continue to advance both its principles and issues of practical accessibility for its citizens and all people around the world, and by ratifying the treaty, so take its rightful place of leadership in the arena of human rights. And he concludes: As I continue my studies in the United States, it is a great pleasure to now learn firsthand how the U.S. developed such a comprehensive and strong system of protection for its citizens with disabilities. I am so hopeful that you will support ratification and allow others to benefit from these triumphs. Thank you for your leadership. I couldn't say it with any more passion nor any more authority. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this was unanimously approved by the committee. There is a provision in there that would simply require the Department to plan to reduce funding for civilian and contractor personnel by approximately 5 percent, which would be less reduction than what is contemplated from the military side. Right now, the President's budget, not counting sequester, would reduce military personnel by 123,900 men and women serving in the military or 5.5 percent over 5 years. Since 2001, the civilian personnel in the Department of Defense has increased by 100,000, a 16 percent increase and a 37 percent increase in civilian pay costs. The Department of Defense continues to be top heavy with headquarters. The Office of the Secretary will grow by 25 percent from 2001 to 2017. Look, we all know that the Department of Defense is being downsized, so there has to be, obviously, a commensurate reduction in civilians, which is actually less than what is actually contemplated in the military. This was unanimously reported, and I have had conversations with the Secretary of Defense, who agrees that we need to reduce the civilian personnel as well as the uniformed personnel. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Regular order here.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Maryland be given an additional 3 minutes, if he so desires.