John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. This resolution calls for the establishment of a select committee of the Senate to make a thorough and complete investigation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the response of the United States Government to the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks against the United States consulate and personnel in Benghazi, Libya, and to make recommendations to prevent similar attacks in the future. I send the resolution to the desk in behalf of myself, Senator Graham of South Carolina, and Senator Ayotte of New Hampshire. Before I go into the need for this select committee--and there clearly is a need because there is a huge credibility gap amongst the American people because of the now going on 8 weeks of contradictory reports, contradictory statements, beginning with the President of the United States. The President of the United States, on the day of September 12, went to the Rose Garden and stated that he opposed terrorist attacks. Then, that evening, as we found out after the election via an interview with ``60 Minutes,'' the President stated-- and I will provide the quotes for the record: ``We don't know who was responsible for these attacks.'' So he went from condemning terrorist attacks to saying to Mr. Croft of ``60 Minutes'' that he didn't know who was responsible, and then in the days following, in various venues, whether they be late night talk shows or the United Nations, the President went on to allege that this was a hideous video that triggered a spontaneous demonstration. Not true. Not true. The President of the United States did not tell the American people the truth about the attacks that took the lives of four brave Americans and that went on for 7 hours, for which we were totally unprepared. Four brave Americans died. It has now been 8 weeks. The American people have received nothing but contradictory statements from all levels of our government. One of the more salient events occurred 5 days after, when clearly it had been identified as an al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist attack. The United Nations Ambassador, at the direction of the White House, went on all the Sunday talk shows to allege that this was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video, as did our Secretary of State, as did, most regrettably, the President of the United States. The American people deserve the facts. The American people need to know why the security at the consulate was so inadequate despite two previous attacks on that facility, including an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador. What did the President know, when did he know it, and what did he do about it? Did the President's national security staff make him aware of these attacks and, if they did, why did he not take the lead? What actions, if any, were taken to respond to a classified cable that was sent from our Embassy in Libya to the State Department on August 16, weeks before the September 11 attack, stating there were numerous armed groups in Benghazi that posed a threat to American interests, and that the consulate in Benghazi could not survive a sustained attack such as the one that eventually occurred a month later at the hands of one of these militia groups which was al- Qaida-affiliated? What actions, if any, did the Secretary of State take in response to these repeated warnings? I saw Christopher Stevens in Tripoli on July 7. He told me of his security concerns then. The Senator from South Carolina and others wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal talking about the need for security, the problems that the nascent Libyan Government was having. Obviously, those were ignored. Why were repeated requests for greater security in Libya turned down by officials at the State Department? On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history and after multiple attacks this year on our consulate in Benghazi and other western interests there, why were U.S. Armed Forces in the region not ready--not ready--and positioned to respond to what was clearly a foreseeable emergency? The fight went on for 7 hours. Why did senior administration officials seek to blame a spontaneous demonstration when there was no spontaneous demonstration, which they were seeing in real-time, which the surveillance cameras within and without our consulate clearly indicated? Why is it that anyone, including our Ambassador to the United Nations, would believe that spontaneous demonstrations are composed of people with mortars, with rocket-propelled grenades and heavy weapons? No one believes that. Why did President Obama insist that he labeled events in Benghazi an act of terrorism on September 12 when we know now--I repeat, we know now--that in an interview with ``60 Minutes'' on the same day he explicitly refused to characterize the attack in this way and he then spent nearly 2 weeks putting the emphasis on a spontaneous protest to a hateful video, including in his address to the United Nations on September 25? We need a select committee. Americans deserve to know. The families of those slain and murdered Americans need to know. And why in the world the administration or our friends on the other side of the aisle or anyone would resist the appointment of a select committee I do not know. We have to have a select committee. The people of the United States deserve it and the families of those murdered deserve it. They deserve answers. For 8 weeks now, they have not gotten the answers. The only credible way of getting those answers is with a select committee. Today I understand that the President of the United States took some umbrage at statements Senator Ayotte, Senator Graham, and I have made concerning this issue. We believe whoever it is must be held responsible, I say to the President of the United States. Most importantly, the President of the United States, who is Commander in Chief, who so far, in my view, has not exercised those responsibilities and has not informed the American people of the facts--this President and this administration have either been guilty of colossal incompetence or engaged in a coverup, neither of which is acceptable to the American people. If it appears that I feel strongly about this issue, I speak with the families, I believe, of those who were murdered. I speak as a friend of Christopher Stevens. I speak as a person who knows something about warfare. I speak with some authority that this attack clearly could have been prevented if the facts on the ground had been taken into consideration, including the ample warnings--including the warnings that were sent on August 16--stating that the consulate could not successfully resist a concentrated attack by al-Qaida-affiliated groups. That alone convinces me, and I believe most Americans when they find out, that the actions to prevent these murders were clearly insufficient, if not totally incompetent. I see the Senator from South Carolina is here to join me as well as the Senator from New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with both the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New Hampshire.

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

Mr. McCAIN. One of the most salient points of this whole scenario was 5 days after the attack when the Ambassador of the United Nations went on all the Sunday talk shows to allege that this was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video. Those talking points the Ambassador used didn't come from the CIA, it is my understanding; they came from the White House. Who in the White House--was it the President of the United States, was it one of his people--who was it that gave her talking points that clearly indicated something for which there was no basis in fact, certainly not after 5 days? Did the President ask about this situation? Did the President of the United States say, Wait a minute, is she going out there, when right after, on the program I was on, ``Face The Nation,'' the President and the Libya national assembly came on right after and said this is an al-Qaida attack, this is a terrorist attack, and then for days afterwards, the President of the United States goes out--including the United Nations--saying that this was a hateful video that triggered a flash mob. None of this has a shred of credibility. So when we talk about the need for a select committee, when the White House is responsible for these talking points, if they were, then that covers all of the different oversight committees that we have in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. McCAIN. I only have one additional comment, and that is, I understand at the President's press conference today, he said not to, quote, pick on his Ambassador to the United Nations, to, quote, pick on him. That statement is really remarkable in that if the President thinks that we are picking on people, he does not have any idea of how serious this issue is. I am a U.S. Senator. The Senator from New Hampshire is. We have our obligations. We have our duties representing the people who sent us here, and we are not picking on anybody. I doubt if the families of these brave Americans who were murdered would believe we are, quote, picking on anyone, that when we are trying to find out the facts, the American people deserve to know the facts. We cannot ever let this happen again. We cannot let a security situation evolve that our lives are in danger. We cannot ignore recommendations. We cannot not have sufficient military available on a September 11, where we know that tensions are incredibly high. The American people are owed an explanation, and it is our duty to try to get that explanation for them. And if someone carried a message to the American people that was totally and utterly false with no basis in fact, then that person also has to be held accountable as well. But first and foremost, the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, is the most responsible. I hope the President has no illusions about our view of his responsibility, which I believe is that of the American people as well. So we need this select committee. There is no credibility left because of all the conflicting stories that have come out and the different rumors and different statements and contradictory statements and finger pointing. The American people deserve answers, not only because of those who were murdered, but to make sure that a tragedy like this never happens again. I repeat, everybody has their responsibilities. We have ours. The President has his. And we intend to pursue this until the American people have the answers they deserve and they have confidence that these kinds of mistakes will never be repeated. We take that very seriously, and we have some disagreement when it is called ``picking on someone.''

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I rise to honor GEN Norton A. Schwartz. General Schwartz will soon officially retire after 39 years as an Air Force officer, the last 4 spent as Chief of Staff. Throughout his career, on the front lines and in the ``corporate'' Air Force, General Schwartz served our Nation selflessly and ably, with dedication and distinction. I came to know General Schwartz when he was appointed Chief of Staff of the Air Force in August 2008. He began his leadership at a very difficult time. Controversy surrounded the Air Force's acquisition activities and the control of our Nation's nuclear arsenal. The Air Force's attempt to acquire aerial refueling tanker aircraft had been mired in scandal and missteps, while the service had just come off two incidents of mishandling nuclear missiles and related materials. General Schwartz established a command climate that helped the service make the changes needed to address these issues. For example, General Schwartz insisted on fully restoring excellence and integrity to the Air Force's acquisition workforce and practices. He succeeded. After years of failed attempts to get the tanker replacement program under contract, the Air Force conducted a source-selection for the program, under full-and-open competition, that serves as a textbook example of how the Department of Defense should award contracts for its largest and most expensive weapon systems. Today, the Air Force's strategy to acquire these tankers is sound. It can certainly be said that under General Schwartz's leadership, this program is, for the first time in its checkered history, well-positioned for success. Through his thoughtful temperament and purposeful humility, General Schwartz also helped restore Congress's confidence in the Air Force's acquisition practices and its management of the critical national security resources entrusted to it. For this, both the warfighter and the taxpayer will remain in his debt. During public hearings before the Armed Services Committee and in our private meetings, I always appreciated General Schwartz's ``straight talk'' about Air Force programs and operations. Despite his unwavering dedication to the Air Force, General Schwartz was never afraid to talk about the hard truths, to propose solutions to problems, and to see those solutions through. Neither was he shy about lauding the many excellent people and accomplishments of the Air Force. So I extend a grateful nation's thanks to GEN Norton A. Schwartz and his wife Suzie for their service to our Nation and wish them every success in the next chapter in their life together.

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 that I be allowed to address the Senate as in morning business, with a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina, and perhaps other Senators who may wish to speak.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before I get into the issue concerning the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, I was just informed that the President of the United States, while speaking to Hispanic television, alleged that the reason why immigration reform was not enacted in the last 4 years of his Presidency is because the Senator from Arizona walked away. Incredible. An incredible statement. I am not often in the business of accusing Presidents of the United States of not telling the truth. But facts are stubborn things. First of all, it was then-Senator Obama who joined with Senator Kennedy and me when we were doing comprehensive immigration reform, and we pledged that we would take tough votes so the whole fragile coalition would not fall apart. Instead of doing that, the then-Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, proposed an amendment which would have destroyed the entire coalition we had together, and did so without telling Senator Kennedy or me or anyone else, by sunsetting the provisions that called for temporary workers. But, more importantly, in 2009, I was invited over to the White House. I went over there. It was a conversation with others about comprehensive immigration reform, and the President at that time stated they would be proposing legislation. I told him I would be glad to examine it and I would be glad to support any effort to comprehensive immigration reform that I could agree with. Nothing came from the White House--zero, not one word. Not one piece of legislation was proposed by the administration. After the shooting and the tragedy in Tucson, the President gave a great speech. I wrote an article thanking him. I was invited over to the White House again. And when we discussed comprehensive immigration reform, I said: I am ready to sit down with you and move forward on it. He said: Of course. There was never a word. Was the President of the United States waiting for the Senator from Arizona to bring forward comprehensive immigration reform? Is that how he thinks government works? So again we find a President who wants to blame everybody else no matter what it is. My friend from South Carolina was involved in this issue as well, and I would be interested in his observation of this entire issue. I still stand ready to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on another subject, yesterday the Senate and, then later, the House were called together to get a briefing from key members of the administration, led by the Secretary of State; a high-ranking member of the FBI; our Director of National Intelligence, General Clapper; and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to tell us ostensibly what happened in the tragic deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other brave Americans. We gathered down in the secret room, where everybody turns in their phones and BlackBerries, and we went in and listened to basically a description of America's military disposition in that part of the world--something which certainly does not warrant a supersecret briefing. But, more importantly than that, when the Secretary and the others were asked exactly what happened--what happened here? What caused this tragedy? What was the sequence of events?--in fact, it was Senators and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee: What happened?--the answer was: Well, that is still an ongoing investigation and we cannot tell you anything. Now, we were supposed to be down there to hear what happened, to hear the administration's version of the events of what happened. We were told nothing. We were told absolutely nothing because there is an investigation going on. This morning in the Wall Street Journal, entitled ``Misjudgments Preceded Deadly Libya Attack,'' there is a tick-tock starting at 8 p.m. all the way through of the events that took place. Now, if that is not an incredible disrespect to the Members of the Senate, I don't know what is. Again, it is an example of the disdain with which this body is held by the administration, including, I am sorry to say, the Secretary of State. It is not that I am offended as a Senator, it is the disrespect to the institution of the Senate when we are called together ostensibly to receive information, that information they tell us they can't give us, and then it appears on the front page of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. What does that mean about the attitude this administration has to this body? Obviously, it is not one that I think is of respect. Does the Senator wish to say something?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to take what remaining time we have in order to discuss the Paul amendment. I would like to begin by asking unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from retired military leaders urging opposition to the Paul amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do not think that our military leaders, retired and Active Duty, are infallible, but I think their views are very important given the vast experience so many of them on this list have. These are 110 retired three- and four-star generals and admirals. I think we should at least pay close attention to their views. They have earned it. They have earned our respect for their views. In addition, I ask unanimous consent to have a letter from AIPAC printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. This letter is from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, America's pro-Israel lobby. It is a letter addressed to majority leader Harry Reid and minority leader Mitch McConnell. All of us here are very familiar with AIPAC. It is a very well respected and highly regarded organization that is really responsible for informing us, for strengthening our ties between the United States and Israel, and I hope my colleagues will take this very strong letter of AIPAC into consideration. There are so many things wrong with the Rand Paul amendment that it is hard to know where to begin. I would like to mention--because I know my colleague who plays a role on the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee wants to join in, I do not want to take too much time. I wish to mention two countries--Libya to start with. Somehow to labor under the belief that the Libyan people are opponents of the United States of America is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Libyans and the Libyan people. They are grateful. They are grateful to the United States of America. They have condemned this attack and this heinous crime of the assassination of four brave Americans. They have said they will do everything in their power to bring these people to justice. I was there on July 7 in Tripoli. I saw thousands of Libyans saying: Thank you, America. Thank you, United States. Thank you, Ambassador Stevens. Thank you. Because they were under the yoke of one of the most brutal dictators on the Earth, who, by the way, was responsible for the deaths of Americans on Pan Am 103 and the bombing of the disco in Berlin. But there is a problem in this country. They have porous borders. They have militias running around. They have not had a government of their own in forever, literally. And they need our help. They need our help in providing border security, in bringing these militias under control and these weapons that have proliferated everywhere. So our message with the Paul amendment is this: Adios. See you around. That is not America's role in Libya. That is not America's role in the world. And nothing would be more welcomed in Libya today by the Islamists and al-Qaida who are there and other extremists--nothing would make them happier than to hear that the United States had cut off all assistance to Libya. Nothing would encourage them more. Nothing would allow them to gain more traction and support from the Libyan people. This is a fight for the hearts and souls of the people of the Middle East. It is not a video--it is not a video that has caused this problem and these riots and demonstrations. It is the efforts of the Islamists who magnify and spread an obscure video throughout the Arab world to stoke the fears and anger of the people of these countries when the fact is that it is a struggle for power. That is what is going on with these videos--a struggle for power. So we are going to send a message to the Libyan people who lost thousands of their citizens in this recent struggle to oust Qadhafi from their country. The second country I wish to mention very quickly is Egypt. Many of us are disappointed at some of the actions the Egyptians have taken. I will say that President Mursi condemned these attacks. He went to Tehran and condemned Bashar al-Asad. But in my view, Egypt is pretty much up for grabs. I don't how the Egyptians are going to go. There is a struggle internally between the Salafists and the extremists and those who want a modern and democratic society, and that struggle will continue. But I would also remind my colleagues that one of the signal agreements of our time was the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement that was consummated at Camp David by President Carter, Anwar Sadat, and Menachem Begin. This was a major step forward--peace between Egypt and Israel. Part of that deal was that the United States would provide aid to Egypt. How are the Egyptians going to react if we cut off aid to them? I can tell you how they will react. They will react that we have breached an agreement that has gone on for a long time. And, believe me, Egypt and Israel's relations are vital in the Middle East. And, again, what would prove a better message to the extremists than to be able to tell their people: Not only do the American people dislike us, not only are they not in support of us, but they will not assist us and other countries. There are many other examples. I believe the role of the United States in the world is important, and I believe also, as I mention as a footnote, that this debate has been going on all of the 20th century, now into the 21st century. Those who are isolationists, who want to fortress America--you can go back to post-World War I and the fight over the League of Nations and, prior to World War II, the isolationists, the Henry Fords, the Charles Lindberghs, the isolationists prior to World War II, past World War II, the Taft wing of the Republican Party and the Eisenhower wing, all the way up until this fight that will probably continue, and history will show that the greatest Nation in history was the United States of America, which, following World War II, restored Europe, turned back the tide of communism, and has been able, all over the world, with no greed, no selfish interest except for democracy and freedom, to aid these countries, which eventually redounds to the favor of the United States of America. I urge, obviously, rejection of the Rand Paul amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in the last few days several interesting things have happened, and some of them tragic--of course, beginning with the tragic loss of our brave four Americans and Ambassador Chris Stevens, then the demonstrations that have taken place everywhere. But I also remind my colleagues there was a most sophisticated attack on one of the most heavily fortified installations in Iraq. It was professional. It was carried out in a professional fashion. It resulted in $200 million worth of loss to the American taxpayer, the greatest single act of destruction since the Tet Offensive back during the Vietnam war. In Afghanistan, because of the attacks of Afghan soldiers on American soldiers, we have had to suspend the operations between the military and police between the two countries. If there was ever an indicator of failure of our policy in Afghanistan, it is our now inability to even train with them to be ready to take over the responsibilities that we now hold. There is no greater indication of the failure of the President of the United States to continue to tell the American people and the people of the world not that we need to succeed, not that we need to win, but that we need to withdraw. So countries in the region have taken the lesson and are making accommodations. The fact is we are now facing a collapsed national security policy in the region, beginning of course with the assertion by the ambassador of the United Nations that what happened with Christopher Stevens and the three others was ``spontaneous'' and the President's spokesperson saying the same thing. We knew it wasn't spontaneous. We know people don't bring heavy weapons and mortars and rocket-propelled grenades to demonstrations spontaneously. This was a well-orchestrated, well-planned, well- executed act of murder of four brave Americans. Now we blame it on the video; it is the video. It is not the video. The video is the vehicle of radical Islamists that they use. And don't think there will not be other vehicles. There are people now, I am sure, all over the world who are making videos that Muslims may find offensive. I found it offensive when there was a picture--that I will not even describe now--back some years ago that was sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts. And we believe in freedom of speech. The first thing we should have said is Americans cherish and have fought for these freedoms, including freedom of speech. Very briefly, because I know my colleagues want to talk, we have totally failed in Iraq. Today, as we speak, Iranian aircraft are overflying Iraq to Syria and delivering weapons to Bashar Assad. We were supposed to leave a residual force there. We didn't because then- Senator Obama, who said the surge would fail--where he was completely wrong--now has said he is now celebrating that we are out of Iraq. They just sentenced their Vice President to death. The tensions between Sunni, Shia, and Kurd have never been greater, and al-Qaida is on the rise in Iraq. In the words of General Keane, the architect of the surge, we won the war and we have lost the peace. In Syria, 25,000 people have now been massacred. When is the last time the President of the United States stood and spoke on behalf of these people? It is impossible for me to understand why the President of the United States wouldn't at least speak out against the murder, rape, and torture that is going on, and continues to go on, and it is an unfair fight with Bashar Assad supplied with Russian weapons, Iranians on the ground--which they have acknowledged. Of course, every day that goes by more and more al-Qaida infiltrate the country. In Afghanistan, of course they know we are leaving. Of course they are accommodating. There is a famous story of the Taliban prisoner and the American officer. The Taliban prisoner says: You have the watches; we have the time. America is believed to be on the decline and weakening. So Mitt Romney was right. The statement issued by the Embassy in Cairo was a semi-apology, which later the administration itself repudiated. This President does not believe in American exceptionalism, he does not believe in American leadership, and we have just paid a very heavy price for our lack of leadership. Leading from behind is not the role of America in the world, and appropriate lessons are being drawn from that all over the world. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Whose time is being----

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I hope all of my colleagues will take note that AIPAC disagrees with the view of the Senator from Kentucky about the effect this legislation may have on aid to Israel. Every Member of Congress and all Americans should know what happened today in Benghazi, Libya. The reports are that as many as 30,000 Libyans took to the streets in Benghazi, the city in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his colleagues were tragically murdered 10 days ago. These demonstrators marched peacefully to the gates of the compound of Ansar al-Sharia, the militia that was responsible for the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues. The demonstrators conducted themselves peacefully. According to media reports, they carried signs that read ``The Ambassador was Libya's friend'' and ``No, no to militias.'' When these brave Libyans arrived at the gates of the compound, they told the militia that they and their violent, extremist agenda are not welcome in the new Libya. Do we want to send a message tonight, after the people of Libya told the militants no, that we don't want to have anything to do with them, we won't assist them, we won't give them what they need to establish a democratic and free society? Because of what happened in Benghazi today, somewhere Chris Stevens is smiling. He is smiling because this is the real Libya, the Libya he knew and loved so well. This is the Libya he wanted America to support and remain engaged with, the Libya of which he ultimately gave his life. These brave people in Libya are friends of America's. They want our help, and they need our help. We must continue to provide it to them, which is exactly what Chris Stevens would have wanted. If the Senate were to cut off all U.S. assistance to Libya now, as this amendment before us would do, it would abandon our friends to our terrorist enemies and destroy America's moral standing in the world and do egregious harm to our national interests.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last night I came to the floor to object to a 1-hour debate on a measure that would have had Draconian effects on our relations with countries in the Middle East. I am not opposed to that measure or debating it. But I said I would think it would be important to have an amendment. The majority leader of the Senate said: The day of amendments here is over. The majority leader of the Senate said: The day of amendments in this body is over. Is there a more telling description of how this body has deteriorated and degenerated over the years? I see my friend from Maine here. It is a far cry from the day we first came, when other majority leaders would allow debate, amendments, and carry out the functions the people ask us to, and that is with vigorous debate and discussion. The day of amendments in this body is over. So as we debated a bill for veterans jobs programs, of which six are already existing, the majority leader, for the first time in 50 years-- for the first time in 50 years in this body--we are not taking up the Defense authorization bill. We are in a war. We continue to have attacks on American citizens. America's national security is at risk. And we cannot even do enough for the men and women who are serving to pass legislation that is so vital to their future and their ability to defend this Nation? Shameful.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, the unanimous consent request of the majority leader is that we have 60 minutes, equally divided, in a vote on the Rand amendment. Is that part of the unanimous consent?

Mr. McCAIN. I would hope the majority leader would have some understanding that we are talking about cutting off aid to several countries that are allies which could have an incredible effect on the entire Middle East. The majority leader wants to have 60 minutes, equally divided, on a measure that, if passed, would have the most Draconian effects on the entire Middle East, a part of the world that is in turmoil now. The majority leader wants to have 60 minutes, equally divided, and with no amendments, obviously, as it is the majority leader's practice not to allow any amendments. I may want to have a side-by-side. This is an issue of the utmost gravity and the utmost importance and the majority leader wants to have an hour, equally divided. It is absolutely mind-boggling, and I think if we are going to cut off all aid to several of our allies, including the Camp David agreements which call for aid to Egypt, including an ally in the region called Libya where we just lost our brave Ambassador--and the majority leader wants to have 60 minutes equally divided and with no one allowed to have any amendments, second degree, side-by-side, and then says Republicans are at fault? I say to the majority leader, I have watched this Senate deteriorate in a way that is almost spectacular. Here we are on the day before the majority leader wants us to go out of session, and we are supposed to just have a vote on an amendment that has the most profound effect on this Nation's security, with 60 minutes equally divided. I don't have a smile on my face, I tell the majority leader. I have a look of incredulous dismay and disgust.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, would the majority leader yield?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am not against the Rand Paul amendment being voted on by the Senate. I do object to an hour equally divided. I object to the fact that we do not have either side-by-side or second- degree amendments, which is the normal parliamentary procedure. Since the majority leader had to inject the ``No. 1 objective is defeat Barack Obama'' routine again, I would like to point out this is the least productive Congress since 1947; that for the first time in 51 years we are not taking up the Defense authorization bill; for the first time in 51 years, when we are fighting a war in Afghanistan, that we can't find the time in the Senate to take up the bill that is so important to the security of this Nation. So the majority leader shouldn't be proud of his record, as he mentioned, including the fact that this Congress is the least productive since 1947. But most of all, in 50 years--in 50 years--we have not taken up the Defense authorization bill that we have taken up for 50 years because other majority leaders who set the calendar have understood its importance to the men and women who are serving in the military and our national security. I again urge that instead of this back-and-forth and mutual objections and nothing getting done around here--I know and the majority leader knows we could take up the Defense authorization bill and get it done in a matter of a few days, and we could have since June. But instead we do this back-and-forth, which makes us the least productive Congress since 1947, with an approval rating by the American people that deservedly is in the single digits. So I repeat: I would be glad to enter into a unanimous consent agreement on the Rand amendment, although I would also tell the majority leader that we may now be establishing a precedent that one Senator can hold up the entire Senate until that Senator gets the vote he is demanding. I could hold up the Senate and demand a vote on the National Defense Authorization Act, which was reported to this body in June. Senator Kyl could hold this body hostage for a vote because of the various pieces of legislation they have. I am not doing that, but I am saying when we are looking at an issue as serious to this Nation's security as cutting off all aid in one fell swoop without even amending, or with an hour of discussion, I think it is almost incredible that we would consider such a parliamentary procedure when we are talking about what is at stake. So I hope we can work out an agreement. I don't feel like staying here this weekend either, but I also have some concern about the safety and security of the men and women who are serving in our diplomatic corps overseas because if that amendment did pass, I guarantee you, you would see a reaction in these countries if we announce arbitrarily that we are cutting off all aid to them. So I think we ought to understand the consequences of the Rand amendment, and it probably would take more than an hour equally divided. I thank the majority leader for listening.

Mr. McCAIN. I believe it is not Senator Paul who sets the parameters for how many hours of debate and amendments and others; I believe it is the majority leader. Could I talk to the majority leader about how long the debate should be or whether we can have amendments? That is all I am saying.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. What is the parliamentary situation as it exists?

Mr. McCAIN. Is the pending legislation open for amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. How long has the Senate been on the motion to proceed?