John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. Defense Authorization I was just glancing through the often-read calendar of business here that we chop down a lot of trees to provide on every Senator's desk on a daily basis. It is the Calendar of Business for Thursday, September 13. On page 58, for order No. 419, is S. 3254, by Mr. Levin, ``a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.'' This was reported and placed on the calendar on June 4, 2012. So for nearly 4 months we have had the Defense authorization bill pending on the legislative calendar. Meanwhile, we have been taken up with other important items, such as the one we are considering now, one that praises, as we all do, our veterans, with efforts for our veterans to obtain jobs. We already have six veterans job-training programs, but, what the heck, let's have another one. Meanwhile, the men and women who are serving in the military, who will be veterans, are not having authorized the equipment, the training, the programs, the health care, family support systems for military families, for example, strengthening training, oversight, and the prevention of military sexual assault, ensuring that reductions in military personnel are matched with comparable savings in civilian personnel and contractors over the next 5 years, without sacrificing mission-critical capabilities. It authorizes $135 billion for military personnel, for the men and women who are serving today, including the cost of pay allowances, bonuses, and a 1.7-percent much-deserved, across-the-board pay raise for all members of the uniformed armed services. It also includes nearly $1 billion in unemployment benefits for members who leave military service and cannot find civilian jobs. It authorizes all our major weapons systems and every piece of equipment large or small that the Department of Defense needs and the men and women need who are still fighting in a war. We found out in the last day or so that we still live in an extremely dangerous world. It authorizes $525 billion for the Defense Department, $88 billion for operations in Afghanistan and around the world, and $17.8 billion to maintain our nuclear deterrent. I think we have just seen with the tragic death of our Ambassador that al-Qaida and other extremist organizations are making a comeback in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan; certainly extremists were present in Libya in the tragic death of four Americans. This legislation enhances the capabilities of our military and partners to counter and ultimately defeat al-Qaida and its regional affiliates which remain intent on attacking the United States and our interests. But there is an issue that all of us are concerned about, cyber warfare, those attacks that we know are coming sooner or later. This legislation improves the ability of our Armed Forces to counter nontraditional threats focusing on terrorism cyber warfare and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I could go on and on about the importance of this legislation which has been before this body for 4 months. And what has the Democratic leader of this Senate done? We are about to go out of session next week without addressing the most important responsibility of this Senate and their elected representatives which is our Nation's defense. In the meantime, when we take up bills, the majority leader ``fills up the tree.'' A lot of people do not know what that means. That means we cannot have an amendment. Then we vote and we drop that particular piece of legislation. Then the next week we will take up a piece of legislation that somehow will enhance the majority leader's ability to maintain his position as majority leader, certainly not believing that that legislation will actually be passed by the Senate. Every year for 51 years the Senate has passed the Defense authorization bill, it has gone to conference and been signed by the President of the United States. The majority leader of the Senate and the Members on the other side of this body have been derelict in their duties, and we are about for the first time in 50 years not to authorize what the men and women who are putting their lives on the line for us every single day need very badly. You know, sometimes my colleagues wonder why the American people hold us in such low esteem. If we cannot enact legislation that has us carry out our most important duties as representatives of the people, including the men and women in the military, then I am surprised that so many Americans still approve of the way Congress operates. What have we watched here on the floor of the Senate for the last 4 months since this bill was put on the calendar and could have been taken up, debated and passed by the Senate as we have every year for 50 years? The majority leader of the Senate has refused to bring this bill before the body for debate, discussion, amendment and passage, our most solemn responsibility. All I can say is, shame, shame, shame that we have not fulfilled the responsibilities to the men and women who are sacrificing their very lives on our behalf, a failure of colossal proportions. All I can say is I believe that the American people are aware, and I believe the American people deserve a lot better than they are getting from this body. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons.) The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be included in the colloquy with the Senator from South Dakota, the Senator from Alabama, and, naturally, the Senator from New Hampshire as well.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think the Senator from South Dakota has laid out the problem. One of the regrets that I think all of us have is the failure of this message to get to the American people: the loss of 1 million defense jobs, $1 trillion taken out of our economy, the devastation to our national security that has been so graphically described by our Secretary of Defense and our uniformed chiefs. And still I think most Americans do not understand how the word ``sequestration'' applies in this particular situation. Now, maybe when this report--thanks to the legislation sponsored by the Senator from South Dakota--comes out as to the effects, it will give more visibility to the train wreck we are facing. It is a train wreck. I would like to remind my colleagues again that the President cut $78 billion from defense in 2011. The budget request this year cut an additional $487 billion over the next decade, and this is another approximately $480 billion in addition to that. That is why our uniformed service chiefs say they will not be able to carry out their missions if this sequestration takes place. And the President of the United States, whose title is ``Commander in Chief,'' has said, as far as I know, one, that he wants us to agree to tax increases. There have been some comments he has made about, well, after the election, maybe we will sit down. That is not the job of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces whose No. 1 priority is this Nation's security. The job of the President of the United States is to prevent the catastrophic consequence of sequestration on our Nation's national security. I stand ready--and I know my colleagues do--I stand ready to go over to the White House and sit down with the President of the United States and say: How can we avert this catastrophe for our Nation's defense? What is the answer? Well, as soon as the Republicans agree to tax increases, or, after the election, maybe we can sit down. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has to plan. They have to plan on what their budget is, on what their capabilities are going to be, what their acquisitions are going to be, how we are going to pay, make sure the pay and benefits of our men and woman who are serving are kept up. I will yield to my friend from Alabama in just a second, but this is really an incredibly frustrating situation. We are not going to take up the Defense authorization bill anytime soon. We are going through a veterans jobs act that never had a hearing, sponsored by a person who is not a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. There are six veterans jobs programs already in being today. Then I read in some of these periodicals that we are going to take up a bill from the Senator from Montana concerning some kind of hunting deal. Meanwhile, the Senate refuses to take up the National Defense Authorization Act, which has to do with defending this Nation. What is the role of the President of the United States on this issue? I ask my colleagues, are we, for the first time in 50 years--the first time in 50 years--not going to pass and send to the President's desk for signature a defense authorization bill? Instead, we will go back and forth filing cloture and arguing on amendments and on which will be allowed or not allowed, fill up the tree, blah, blah, blah. Yet the majority leader of the Senate cannot take up the national defense authorization bill, the most important piece of legislation this body considers, and it may be that we do not take it up for the first time in 50 years. We must address the issue of sequestration. I again commit to making compromises, to doing things I otherwise would not agree to, because we cannot allow this train wreck that will endanger the lives of our citizens to take place. Do not take my word for it. Take the word of the Secretary of Defense appointed by the President of the United States and our uniformed chiefs appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate that this is a devastating challenge to our national security. We just found out in the last couple of days that the world we live in is a very dangerous one. I thank my colleagues for their involvement. I yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask the Senator from New Hampshire, is it not true we went to her State and met with a major defense industry in the State of New Hampshire that employs thousands of people?

Mr. McCAIN. What do they say?

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask the Senator from Alabama, is it not true, if these cuts are enacted in the fashion they are designed right now, we are going to have a serious impact on our economy, to the point where it could result in even negative growth, according to objective studies?

Mr. McCAIN. Wouldn't that also be true if a defense contractor today literally has no ability to make plans for what their company or corporation would be expected to do on January 1 of 2013?

Mr. McCAIN. Isn't that known as chutzpah--to come down and attack the other body's budget when we haven't done a budget for 3 years, which is required by law? I have to hand it to them--I have to hand it to them. I congratulate my friends on the other side of the aisle who come down and attack the other body's budget when they haven't done one in 3 years. Congratulations for new levels of hypocrisy.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes, the President did have a budget. It got zero votes. Not a single Member on the other side of the aisle voted for their own President's budget. Yet they will come down and attack a budget proposal which, by the way, puts us on a path to a balanced budget, and there is certainly no proposal I have ever seen coming from the other side. In fact, the answer, according to them, is spend more money-- spend more money. Let's have more of everything. Obviously, that has not been a very successful approach over the last 3\1/2\ years. Again, I don't mean to be too repetitive, but here we are and what are we debating--a jobs bill. It sounds great. It sounds great: a veterans jobs bill. What could be better or more important? We have six veterans jobs programs that haven't succeeded. The fact is we are not addressing the needs of the men and women in the military who will be veterans someday. We are not providing them with the equipment, the training, and the wherewithal to defend this Nation by both ignoring sequestration and not taking up the National Defense Authorization Act. My friends, I think the American people see through this charade we are conducting in these last few days before we go out to campaign and see if we can find and meet any Americans who are still in that 11 percent who say they still approve of Congress.

Mr. McCAIN. I totally agree.

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 engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and Senator Graham from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to speak about the horrific attack yesterday on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed four American citizens. The two confirmed thus far to be among the dead are Sean Smith, an Air Force veteran turned State Department information management officer, and Ambassador Chris Stevens, one of America's finest and bravest Foreign Service officers. I did not know Sean Smith--I know he was a great American who served his country--but I had gotten to know Chris Stevens quite well. In Ambassador Chris Stevens' death, the Libyan people have lost a great champion and believer in the peaceful aspirations of their democratic revolution; the American people have lost a selfless and dedicated servant of our interests and our values, and I have lost a friend. My thoughts and prayers today are with Chris's family and the loved ones of his fallen colleagues. May God grant them comfort in their time of grief. Our most urgent order of business now is to make sure our citizens still living and serving in Libya and Egypt and elsewhere across the region and the world are safe. Americans look to the governments in Libya and Egypt and elsewhere to meet their responsibilities in this regard. We also look to the Libyan Government to ensure that those responsible for yesterday's attack in Benghazi are swiftly brought to justice. In all of these critical tasks, we are confident that our government will provide all necessary assistance and support. Yesterday's attacks are an important reminder that so many of America's civilians and diplomats and development professionals are risking everything--everything--to advance our Nation's interests and values abroad. We must do everything in our power to ensure their security. At the same time, our thoughts turn to broader concerns: the mourning of our fallen friends, and how we as a Nation should respond to these tragic events. One of my most memorable meetings with Chris Stevens was last April in Benghazi. As U.S. Envoy to the Libyan opposition, Chris had traveled to Benghazi at great personal risk to represent the country he loved so much while Libya was still gripped in a brutal fight for freedom. It was clear there was nowhere that Chris would rather have been than Libya. We spent the day together, meeting Libyan opposition leaders and many ordinary citizens, who spoke movingly about how much the opportunity to finally live in freedom meant to them, and how grateful they were for America's support. Chris Stevens embodied that support, and his passion for his mission was infectious. I kept in touch with him often and frequently after my visit. I was very happy when President Obama nominated him to be America's Ambassador to the new Libya. The last time I saw Chris Stevens was shortly after he had taken his post, during my most recent visit to Tripoli. I especially remember the lighter moments we spent together, including when Chris insisted on personally making me a cappuccino, a task that he carried out with as much pride and proficiency as his diplomatic mission. That was on the morning of July 7--the day Libyans voted in their first election in half a century. Chris Stevens and I spent the day together again, traveling around Tripoli, visiting polling places, and speaking with Libyan voters. We met a man whose father had been murdered by Qadhafi's henchmen. We met a woman whose brothers had recently given their lives fighting for their country's liberation. We met countless others, including many older Libyans, who were voting for the first time in their lives. And everywhere we went, we were greeted by crowds of cheering Libyans, bursting with pride and eager to shake our hands and express their gratitude for America's support. It was one of the most moving experiences of my life, and it was only made better by the fact that I got to share it with our outstanding Ambassador, Chris Stevens. What we saw together on that day was the real Libya--the peaceful desire of millions of people to live in freedom and democracy, the immense gratitude they felt for America's support for them, and their strong desire to build a new partnership between our nations. That is why I am not surprised that senior Libyan leaders were among the first to condemn the horrific attack that killed Chris and his colleagues. And that is why I was not surprised to learn from our Secretary of State that many Libyans fought to defend our people and our consulate in Benghazi when they came under attack, that some were wounded while doing so, and that it was Libyans who sought to get Chris and his colleagues to the hospital. And that is why we cannot afford to view the despicable acts of violence perpetrated yesterday by a small group of fanatics as in any way representative of the country and the people of Libya. That is not the real Libya, the Libya Chris Stevens knew and learned to love so well. After such a heartbreaking loss for our Nation, I know many Americans are asking whether the United States was naive or mistaken to support the vast movement for change that is known as the Arab spring. I know many Americans may feel a temptation, especially with so many domestic and economic challenges facing us here at home, to distance ourselves from people and events in Libya and Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East. We cannot afford to go down that path. Yesterday's attack in Benghazi was the work of a small group of violent extremists, whose goals and actions could not be more at odds with those of the people and government of Libya. The Libyan revolution began peacefully and was dedicated throughout to the ideals of freedom and justice and democratic change. When Libyans turned out by the millions to elect a new government in July, they gave the plurality of their vote not to religious fanatics but to a political party led by a moderate technocrat and committed to friendship with the United States. Libyans arose last year to free themselves from exactly the kinds of murderers and terrorists who killed our American citizens yesterday in Benghazi. Their enemies are our enemies, and they remain as committed as ever to imposing their evil ideology through violence on people in Libya and the Middle East, and ultimately on us. They want to hijack the Arab spring for their own insidious purposes. If we turn our backs now on the millions of people in Libya and Egypt and Syria and other countries across the Middle East--people who share so many of our values and interests, people who are the true authors of the Arab spring--we will hand our common enemies--the terrorists and extremists--the very victory they seek. We were right to take the side of the Libyan people and others in the region who share their peaceful aspirations. We would be gravely mistaken to walk away from them now. To do so would not only be a betrayal of everything Chris Stevens and his colleagues believed in and ultimately gave their lives for, it would be a betrayal of America's highest values and our own enduring national interest in supporting people in the Middle East and the world who want to live in peace and freedom. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my friend from Connecticut. I know he shares with me the sorrow that we and all Americans feel at the loss of a brave and dedicated American. But it will be a long time before we forget Chris Stevens because he will stand as a shining example of patriotism and love of country. Chris Stevens was not unaware of the danger he faced. He was privy to intelligence information, and others. But he went forward and did his job with a smile, with love of his country, and love of the country where he was serving. I cannot be more proud of Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend for his eloquent words. I would also like to again emphasize that there were four brave Americans--four. Sean Smith was one of them, a truly great American. There are two others--we do not even know their identity. So I hope the families who have suffered this loss appreciate that we grieve for all. We had the opportunity of knowing Chris Stevens. I did meet Sean Smith and the others. We mourn for them, and we thank them for their service to this Nation. I ask my friend from Connecticut, wouldn't the worst legacy of Chris Stevens' service to this country be a movement of the United States to withdraw, to fortress America, to renounce our service to the world in helping these countries achieve the same democracy and freedom for which our forefathers strived? I do not mean to use his death as any kind of political agenda, but I remember him well enough to know that the worst outcome of this tragedy would be for the United States to withdraw. In fact, I am confident that if he were here, he would be urging us to get right back in, bring these extremists to justice, and press on with the democracy and freedom the people of Libya deserve and have earned at great loss of blood and treasure.

Mr. McCAIN. I wish to say in conclusion that I thank my old and dear friend from Connecticut and the Senator from South Carolina. Finally, I would share with my colleagues that on last July 7 I was in Tripoli with Chris Stevens and it was the first free and fair election the Libyan people ever experienced. As we went from polling place to polling place, we met people who had lost brothers, husbands, fathers, mothers, and sisters at the hands of one of the more brutal butchers who has ever been on Earth, Muammar Qadhafi. That night we went to the square, where some 200,000 people were driving around, honking horns, celebrating, and waving Libyan flags. It was a really auspicious start. And as Senator Lieberman pointed out, it was a moderate group who were elected to govern Libya by the people of Libya. Chris Stevens was recognized by all of them. They knew Chris Stevens and they knew what he represented--the United States of America. So those are memories I will never forget, and I hope his family will appreciate the magnificent service he provided to this Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, at this late hour of our session, until September, I think it is important we continue to pay attention to and be concerned about the situation in Syria. Today, Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, announced the failure of his mission. If there is anything about the conflict in Syria that did not surprise most of us, it is the fact that Kofi Annan's mission was a failure. It was doomed to failure from the beginning. It was based on the premise that somehow Bashar Assad would be motivated to stop the massacre of his people. It was motivated on the premise that somehow U.N. observers could come in and stand between the two fighting forces but totally ignore the fundamentals of this conflict. The fundamentals of this conflict are simple: It is the Syrian people attempting to assert their God-given rights and throw off the yoke of a brutal and unconscionable dictator, and on the other side of the equation Bashar Assad's commitment to doing whatever is necessary, including massacring now as many as 20,000 of his own people in his desperate quest to remain in power in Syria. Let's not forget that one of the reasons we have seen heavy Russian involvement in the form of supplies of arms and equipment and continued Russian veto of resolutions in the U.N. Security Council that would have imposed even the mildest sanctions on Bashar Assad is what seems to be some kind of nostalgia on President Putin's part for the old Russian empire and the maintenance of their one base on the Mediterranean port in Syria. The Russians' behavior in this throughout, as they continue to block one resolution after another, of course, is revealing of the true nature of the Putin regime, the autocracy and kleptocracy that has now asserted its full power and weight in Russia. In addition to that, of course, we have the Chinese joining Russia in their sustaining of vetoes in the U.N. Security Council. It is hard to overstate the damage these actions by Russia and China have done to them, but it is also hard to overstate the damage that has been done to the Syrian people, with Russian equipment being supplied constantly, Iranian boots on the ground helping to set up torture centers, and continued encouragement of Bashar Assad to remain in power. I am not here to again critique this administration's abysmal record, but isn't it ludicrous--isn't it ludicrous--to base your entire policy toward Syria on the belief that somehow the Russians would convince Bashar Assad that he should leave Syria? Isn't it foolish to somehow base your policy and nonintervention on the belief that somehow the mission of a former Secretary General of the United Nations would succeed when it was clear the Syrian people were not going to be satisfied with the continuous barbarous regime of Bashar Assad, and certainly Bashar Assad was not going to give up? It is clear through Iran's actions that its rulers are playing for keeps in Syria, and they will stop at nothing to prevent the fall of Bashar Assad. Why are the Iranians so committed and involved? The words of General Mattis, the Commander of U.S. Central Command, described it before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said that the fall of Bashar Assad would be ``the greatest blow to Iran in 25 years.'' So the United States does have more than a humanitarian interest in what happens in Syria. In fact, if Bashar Assad falls, Syria loses its position as far as Lebanon is concerned, the Lebanese people have an opportunity to lose their client status of Syria, and Hezbollah absorbs a serious blow because they lose their patron in Syria. So the fall of Bashar Assad is not only a victory for the force of democracy and freedom, but it would also mean a significant--a significant--advance in our interest in the region as our major concern today remains the Iranian continued development of nuclear weapons. The path they are on sooner or later may provoke an attack by either Israel and/or the United States of America. I say that with some authority because the President of the United States, President Obama, has appropriately said it would be unacceptable for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. I have been, along with my friend Joe Lieberman, to a refugee camp in Turkey on the Syrian border. There have now been thousands and thousands of additional residents there who have had to flee the brutality of Bashar Assad inside Syria. I met young men who were freshly wounded. I met defectors from the Syrian Army who described how they are instructed--they are instructed and indoctrinated to rape, to murder, and to torture. I met individuals who have watched their children murdered before their very eyes, and I met a group of young women who had been gang raped. I wish every American could have had the opportunity to see these people whose only reason--only reason--to rise up is because they want to achieve their God-given rights. What is going on now in Syria is very important, because the longer the conflict drags out, the more jihadists and foreign fighters and extremists come into the fight. Every day that goes by that Bashar al-Assad is in power is another day which will make it more difficult once he leaves--and he will leave, but the question is when--but how difficult it will be for Syria to knit their country back together and become a functioning democracy. There is also a very serious issue of chemical weapons. It is well known, and for the first time recently, the Syrian government acknowledged that they have stores of chemical weapons. These chemical weapons pose a great threat in a very unstable region. There are various scenarios that we should be deeply concerned about. One of them is that if chemical weapons fall into the hands or shift to Hezbollah, what kind of a threat does that pose to Israel? I remind my colleagues that Hezbollah has committed to the extinction of the State of Israel, as has Iran. So what happens with these chemical weapons is a very important issue. The more chaos and the more disorder and the more frustration and anger that is displayed on both sides, the more likely it is that these chemical weapons can fall into the wrong hands, and they are not located in one place. So there is a great deal at stake. There is one thing I hope we could all agree on; that is, the longer it lasts, the greater the danger, the greater the chaos, the more killing, the more rapes, the more murders. Today we have information that the President of the United States has made a decision--and I am not sure of the details because I only know the media reports, but the best way to describe, as I understand it is--to facilitate the flow of weapons to the Syrian resistance fighters. I don't know how that is done. I don't know how that is accomplished, but I do know this, that they also need a sanctuary. They need an area that is secure, the same way the Libyans needed Benghazi, so they can train, equip, and establish a government. The resistance, as we all know, is fractured. The best way to join them together is to have a central council they can answer to and that can make sure the weapons go to the right place. That is a vital component that should happen sooner rather than later. None of us seeks to put American boots on the ground for a whole lot of reasons. I know the American people are war-weary and focused on our own domestic challenges. Both of these sentiments are genuine and legitimate. But what has unfolded in Syria over the past 1\1/2\ years not only offends the conscience of our country, it also poses real and growing risk to our national security interests and to those of some of our closest allies. I don't believe Bashar Assad can last, even under current conditions. But I do know for sure America's national security interests in Syria will remain long after Assad's fall. In many ways, they could become more precarious because of our inaction, because of the failure of the President of the United States to speak up for these people. Why doesn't the President of the United States speak up for them? I have never understood that. Because of our inaction, the people who will inherit the country in Syria will remember that in their hour of greatest need, when the bravest among them were fighting and dying for their freedom in a grossly unfair fight, America stood idly by and refused to help. As the sister of a fallen opposition fighter in Syria recently remarked, ``When we control Syria, we won't forget that you forgot about us.'' Millions of her fellow Syrians share that sentiment. If we continue on this path of inaction, mass atrocities will continue to unfold in Aleppo and other places in Syria. We have the power to prevent this needless death and advance our strategic interests in the Middle East at the same time. If we don't, if we continue this shameful behavior, our failure of leadership will haunt us for a long period to come. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose cloture on the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. Are any of us surprised that we find ourselves in this situation-- again? Is this the ``open amendment'' process we were all promised? As I said earlier this year, a bill as complex as cyber security legislation can only be achieved if it goes through the regular committee process. Had this bill been subjected to the proper committee process, instead of relying on Senate rule XIV, I believe we would have had a much stronger legislative product that would have attracted broader support. Instead, the blame game, which is the first sign of a stalled legislative process, is in full swing. As of yesterday afternoon it was my understanding that we would continue to work throughout August to find a compromise on this legislation. As a backstop to prepare for the possibility that an agreement would not be reached during that time, we requested a tranche of 10 to 15 placeholder amendments be set aside to address a defined set of issue areas we had with the current bill. In exchange for these process concessions, our group was willing to support cloture. The unfortunate reality is that we had time to conduct proper legislative hearings and hold committee markups. But rather than choose the customary process, which forces us to defend our points of view, build consensus around ideas and, admittedly, requires more planning and hard work, a less transparent approach was taken. That approach, while at the time may have seemed more legislatively convenient, resulted in hurried, last-minute negotiations that have been doomed from the outset. Rarely does anything good get accomplished under these circumstances, which lack transparency and scrutiny. This should serve as a warning to both sides of the aisle and future congresses that attempts to side-step the legislative process are risky, often unproductive, and do not bypass the criticism they seek to avoid. And while all of us recognize the importance of cyber security, we should not confuse opposition to this deeply flawed bill as a sign of somehow being unwilling to address the issue. It has been my experience that when dealing with matters of national security and domestic policy, and in this bill is at the nexus of both, it is more important to work to get something done right than just work to get something done. And while both efforts may result in enough material to create a headline, only one fulfills our purpose for being here in this body. Time and again, we have heard from experts about the importance of maximizing our Nation's ability to effectively prevent and respond to cyber threats. We have all listened to these accounts. This cyber threat and the risk of an attack only increased when the Stuxnet leaks began recklessly coming out of this administration. And while this threat and others persist, the most important piece of legislation which the congress can pass when it comes to ensuring our national security, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes cyber security elements, remains unfinished. This entire process feels more like a ploy to advance the fiction that we are focused on national security, while avoiding the fulfillment of one of the Congress's most important national security responsibilities--the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act. The point is that debating a controversial and flawed bill--a bill of such `significance' that it has languished for over 5 months at the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, with no committee markup or normal committee process--should not have taken precedence over a bill which was vetted over a period of 4 months by the Senate Armed Services Committee and reported to the floor with the unanimous support of all 26 members. Unfortunately, our current trajectory will likely leave us without a cyber security bill or the National Defense Authorization Act. As I have said time and time again, the threat we face in the cyber domain is among the most significant and challenging threats of 21st- century warfare. But this bill unfortunately takes us in the wrong direction and establishes a new national security precedent which fails to recognize the gravity of the threats we face in cyber space. I agree that we must take appropriate steps to ensure that civil liberties are protected and believe we could have appropriately done so without removing the only institutions capable of protecting the United States from a cyber attack from counties like China, Russia, and Iran--from the front lines. Making these entities more reliant on their less capable civilian counterparts is an unacceptable, precedent setting approach, which fails to recognize the unique real-time requirements for understanding the threat environment, anticipating attacks, and responding when necessary. Additionally, what is not being discussed enough are the likely implications of the new cyber security stovepipes being proposed in this bill. The recreation of the very walls and information sharing barriers that the 9/11 Commission attributed as being responsible for one of our greatest intelligence failures is very unwise. In addition to the problems with the information sharing provisions, the critical infrastructure language grants too much authority to the government, failing to consider the innovative potential of the private sector. I continue to believe that this title would force those who own or operate critical assets to place more emphasis on compliance attorneys, rather than utilize the world-class engineering capabilities employed by our private sector. This is why the primary objective of our bill is to enter into a cooperative information sharing relationship with the private sector, rather than an adversarial relationship rooted in mandates used to dictate technological solutions to industry. The SECURE IT Act is a serious response to the growing cyber threat facing our country, and it is an alternative approach to the overly bureaucratic and regulatory bill before us. Our amendment seeks to utilize the world-class engineers employed by our private sector, not compliance attorneys in law firms. This is why the primary objective of our bill is to enter into a cooperative information-sharing relationship with the private sector, rather than an adversarial relationship rooted in mandates used to dictate technological solutions to industry. The centerpiece of the SECURE IT Act continues to be a legal framework to provide for voluntary information sharing. Our amendment provides specific authorities relating to the voluntary sharing of cyber threat information among private entities and the government, and in doing so, we do not create any new bureaucracy. This bill at the very least deserved a vote. As I stated earlier, it has been my experience that when dealing with matters of national security and domestic policy, it is more important to work to get something done right than just work to get something done. For these reasons, and because of the closed process put forth by the majority, we should all oppose cloture.

Mr. McCAIN. Well, Mr. President, I want to again thank Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins for their willingness to negotiate seriously. I want to thank also Senator Chambliss as well as Senator Hutchison and many others, Senator Kyl and others. We have had large meetings, small meetings, medium-sized meetings. We have had discussions among various groups. I believe we sort of had the outlines of a framework that we could have had a certain number of amendments that we all agreed to that would be voted on. At the same time, we could prevail upon some of our colleagues not to have nongermane amendments. Unfortunately, the first amendment proposed by the majority leader has to do with tax cuts. Look, I say to my colleagues that I think we have developed a framework where we can move forward with a certain number of germane amendments. All of us appreciate how important this issue is. I don't see the need for this vote. Cloture will not be invoked. All it will do is embed people in their previously held positions. What we should be doing is continuing productive negotiations and discussions that we had all during yesterday, put off this cloture vote, and try to come to some agreement in recognition that cyber security is a vital national security issue. We all recognize that. We started out very much poles apart. I think there have been some agreements made which I view as significant progress. I regret, I say to Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, and all my colleagues, that we are taking this vote when we should be spending our time--at least the rest of the day--setting up a framework that we can address cyber security during the first week we are back in September. But it is what it is. I thank Senators Lieberman and Collins for their willingness to sit down and negotiate. We still have significant differences, but I think those could have been resolved. I hope this vote doesn't have a chilling effect on what I think was progress that was being made.

Mr. McCAIN. On issues of transparency and information sharing and others, there are still differences, but they have been narrowed. Again, I thank my colleagues for their hard work.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. I see the majority leader wants to speak, but my question is, isn't it true that there has been a series of meetings including the sponsors of the bill, those of us who believed significant modifications needed to be made, and large numbers of Senators have at least tentatively come to some agreement that we think could move this legislation forward in a fashion that recognizes the importance of the issue and yet dramatically, in our view, improves the legislation? I hope the Republican leader and majority leader would not interpret this vote--which clearly cloture will not be invoked--as an impediment to the process that I think was moving on a path where we could have reached some agreement and addressed this issue and this legislation conclusively.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as Members depart Capitol Hill for August recess, wildfires will be raging across much of the Nation perhaps in their home States. Over 1.3 million acres have burned this summer, and historic drought conditions will continue to fan the flames. Last year, my home State of Arizona experienced the largest wildfire in State history, the Wallow Fire, which consumed over 500,000 acres. This year has been particularly distressing for States like Colorado, where the Waldo Canyon Fire near Colorado Springs forced the evacuation of thousands of residents, destroyed more than 350 homes, threatened the U.S. Air Force Academy, and became the most expensive fire in that State's history. Currently, there are 29 large uncontained wildfire burning across the Nation, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. Wildfires like these underscore the urgent need to start modernizing our antiquated Forest Service airtanker fleet. Airtankers are a vital tool capable of rapidly altering the paths of major fires and providing immediate protection to ground personnel. Many of the core aircraft operated by the Forest Service are Korean-era DC-3s and P-2Vs that are rapidly failing. Just last month, a P-2V built in 1962 crashed in Utah, tragically killing the pilot and co-pilot. These are but a few examples in long list of terrible accidents where worn out aircraft are being operated far beyond their intended service lives, the perfect recipe for future accidents. That is why Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Mike Johanns, and I have introduced S. 3441, the Wildfire Suppression Aircraft Transfer Act of 2012. Our bill would transfer fourteen excess C-27J aircraft from the U.S. Air Force to the Forest Service to help recapitalize their airtanker fleet. These are nearly-new aircraft that will greatly enhance the mission flexibility and lifespan of the Forest Service fleet. This legislation is supported by the Forest Service as well as certain stakeholder groups like the International Association of Fire Chiefs. My colleagues and I attempted to pass this legislation before the Senate adjourned for August recess. Regretfully, there are several members with an interest in keeping these aircraft operating who objected to our bill, even though the Pentagon wants to retire them. This is disappointing because our legislation would not interfere with the Congressional prerogative to approve or reject the Department of Defense force structure plan for Fiscal Year 2013. Clearly, there are differing opinions over divesting the C-27J, and I respect the right of Senators who want to address that issue in the context of the National Defense Authorization Act. Our legislation is intended as a post- divestment authority to ensure that that the C-27J is put to good use fighting wildfires instead of being mothballed. Over the August recess, I hope to work with the Members who have objected to S. 3441 because I believe these platforms can be utilized to save lives and property.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my friend, isn't it also true that this individual had some 23 family members whose lives were also placed in danger because of the revelation of his identity?

Mr. McCAIN. I do not think it gets him off the hook. I think it has some significance as compared to this kind of egregious breach of security that has taken place at the highest level. We know that.