John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, wouldn't my colleague agree that one of the most revealing aspects of this entire issue from program to program that leads to enormous suspicion would be that probably the most respected Member of the President's Cabinet who stayed over from the Bush administration, Secretary Gates, was so agitated by the revelation of information about the bin Laden raid that he came over to the White House and said to the President's National Security Adviser that he had a ``new communication strategy.'' He responded by saying to the National Security Adviser, ``Shut the F up.'' That is a devastating comment and leads one to the suspicion that things were done improperly in the revelation of these most important and sensitive programs that were being carried out and are ongoing to this day. So I ask my colleague, what is the difference between the Biden- Schumer-Levin-Daschle letter to President Bush in 2003 where they called for the appointment of a special counsel--Vice President Biden-- and how the White House should handle Libby? I think they should appoint a special prosecutor. In 2003, then-Senator Biden called for a special counsel with 34 Senators, and then-Senator Obama requested the appointment of a special counsel to lead the Abramoff case. I was involved heavily initially with the Abramoff case, and I can tell my colleagues even though there was severe corruption, there was certainly nothing as far as a breach of national security is concerned. Yet they needed a special counsel, according to then-Senator Obama, to investigate Abramoff but not this serious consequence. So I guess my unanimous consent request for this resolution will be objected to. But the fact is, we need a special counsel because the American people need to know. I do not believe anyone who has to report to the Attorney General of the United States would be considered as objective. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague. I also want to point out that traveling in the region and meeting with the leaders in these various countries, it cries out for American leadership, I think my colleague would agree, in a coordinated partnership with these countries. But they cry out for American leadership. And meanwhile, the President of the United States, as this slaughter goes on, is silent. His spokesman says they don't want to militarize the conflict. How in the world could you make a statement like that when 10,000 people have already been slaughtered? That, to me, is so bizarre. I am not sure I have ever seen anything quite like it. There is always the comparison, I say to my friend from Connecticut, about Libya. There is an aspect of this issue. Libya was not in America's security interests. Libya was clearly a situation where we got rid of one of the most brutal dictators who was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103 and the deaths of Americans. But if Syria goes on the path to democracy, it is the greatest blow to Iran in 25 years. Hezbollah is broken off. Russia loses its last client state. Iran loses the most important ally it has in the region. Finally, I would say to my friend we keep hearing over and over again that extremists will come in; Al Qaida will come in. We heard that in Tunisia, we heard that in Libya, we are hearing that in Egypt, and we are hearing that again--neglecting the fact that al Qaida and extremists are the exact antithesis of who these people are. These people believe in peaceful demonstrations to bring about change--they have been repressed through brutality--whereas al Qaida, as we know, believes in acts of terror. I agree with my colleague, if we provided a sanctuary for these people in order to organize and care for the wounded, to have a shadow government set up as we saw in Libya, then I think it is pretty obvious that it would be a huge step forward. Again, as my friend from Connecticut has often said so eloquently, probably the most immortal words ever written in English are: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all of us are endowed--all--by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. The people of Syria who are suffering under this brutal dictatorship and are being slaughtered as we speak I believe have those inalienable rights. The role of the United States has not been to go everywhere and fight every war, but it has been the role of the United States of America, when it can, to go to the assistance of people who are suffering under dictatorships such as this, one of the most brutal in history. And for us to now consign them to the good graces of Russia and whether they will veto a U.N. Security Council resolution as to whether we will act on behalf of these people is a great abdication of American authority and responsibility. Finally, I wish to say that Senator Lieberman and I have visited these places. We have seen these people. I wish all of our colleagues-- I wish all Americans--could have gone to the refugee camp where there are 25,000 people who have been ejected from their homes, the young men who still had fresh wounds, the young women who had been gang raped, the families and mothers who had lost their sons and daughters. It is deeply moving. It is deeply, deeply moving. And, as my friend from Connecticut said, they cry out. They cry out for our help. We should be speaking up every day on their behalf, all of us, and we should be contemplating actions that stop this unprecedented brutality.

Mr. McCAIN. I would like to thank Senator Moran of Kansas for a very moving tribute to those who have served and sacrificed. I know the people of Kansas join him in expressing their gratitude for their service and sacrifice, and I thank the Senator from Kansas for a very eloquent and moving statement. God bless.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Connecticut and I be permitted to join in a colloquy on the situation in Syria.

Mr. McCAIN. Before entering into our colloquy, I would like to make some brief remarks. It should come as no surprise to any of our colleagues--and it certainly comes as no surprise to me--that the civil war raging in Syria has only deteriorated further over the past 2 weeks. On Saturday, May 26, we read the horrific news of a massacre that Bashar al-Assad's forces committed in the Syrian town of Houla. At least 108 civilians-- the majority of them women and children--are now believed to have been killed, some from repeated shelling by Assad's tanks and artillery, but most slaughtered in their homes and executed in the streets. Survivors describe a scene so gruesome that even after 16 months of bloodshed and more than 10,000 dead, it still manages to shock the conscience. There are now reports of another massacre by Assad's forces with as many as 78 Syrians dead and that Syrian authorities are blocking access to the scene for the U.N. monitors on the ground. These massacres of civilians are sickening and evil, but it is only the latest and most appalling evidence there is no limit to the savagery of Assad and his forces. They will do anything, kill anyone, and stop at nothing to hold on to power. What has been the response of the United States and the rest of the civilized world to this most recent atrocity in Syria? More empty words of scorn and condemnation. More hollow pledges that the killing must stop. More strained expressions of amazement at what has become so tragically commonplace. Indeed, as Jeffrey Goldberg has noted, administration officials are now at risk of running out of superlative adjectives and adverbs with which to condemn this violence in Syria. They have called it ``heinous,'' ``outrageous,'' ``unforgivable,'' ``breathtaking,'' ``disgraceful,'' and many other synonyms for the same. I don't know what else they can call it. Yet the killing goes on. The administration now appears to be so desperate they are returning to old ideas that have already been tried and failed. Let me quote from a New York Times article that appeared on May 27. In a new effort to halt more than a year of bloodshed in Syria, President Obama will push for the departure of President Bashar al-Assad under a proposal modeled on the transition in another strife-torn Arab country, Yemen. . . . The success of the plan hinges on Russia, one of Mr. Assad's staunchest allies, which has strongly opposed his removal. This is a case of history repeating itself as farce. Trying to enlist Russia in a policy of regime change in Syria is exactly what the administration spent months doing earlier this year, and that approach was decisively rejected by Russia when it vetoed a toothless sanctions resolution in the U.N. Security Council in February. How is this recycled policy working out? Well, last week, a human rights organization disclosed that on May 26, a Russian ship delivered the latest Russian supply of heavy weapons to the Assad regime in the Port of Tartus. Last Friday, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement on the Houla massacre--and blamed it on the opposition. President Putin, after blowing off a trip to Washington in favor of a visit to Europe, suggested that foreign powers were also to blame for the Houla massacre. He went on to reject further sanctions on the Assad regime and to deny Russia is shipping any relevant weapons to Assad. Not to be outdone, last week the Russian Foreign Minister also described the situation in Syria this way. It takes two to dance--although this seems less like a tango and more like a disco, where several dozens are taking part at once. One might think this alone would be enough to disabuse the administration of its insistence, against all empirical evidence, that Russia is the key to ending the violence in Syria. One might think so, but one would be wrong. Asked last week whether he could envision some kind of military intervention in Syria without a U.N. Security Council resolution, which is subject to a Russian and Chinese veto, the Secretary of Defense said, no, he cannot envision it. Similarly, the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, rejected the idea of providing weapons to the Syrian people to help them defend themselves, saying that would lead to--get this, get this: If we supplied weapons to the Syrian resistance, it would lead to ``chaos and carnage,'' and it would militarize the conflict. It would militarize the conflict. After more than 10,000 have been slaughtered by Bashar al-Assad with Russian weapons, Iranians on the ground, it would militarize the conflict. It is difficult even to muster a response to statements and actions such as these. U.S. policy in Syria now seems to be subject to the approval of Russian leaders who are arming Assad's forces and who believe the slaughter of more than 10,000 people in Syria can be compared to a disco party. Meanwhile, the administration refuses even to provide weapons to Syrians who are struggling and dying in an unfair fight, all for fear of ``militarizing the conflict.'' If only the Russians and the Iranians and al-Qaida shared that lofty sentiment. I pray that President Obama will finally realize what President Clinton came to understand during the Balkan wars. President Clinton, who took military action to stop ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and did so in Kosovo without the U.N. Security Council mandate, ultimately understood that when regimes are willing to commit any atrocity to stay in power, diplomacy cannot succeed until the military balance of power changes on the ground. As long as Assad and his foreign supporters think they can win militarily, which they do, they will continue fighting and more Syrians will die. In short, military intervention of some kind is a prerequisite to the political resolution of the conflict we all want to achieve. The question I would pose to my colleague from Connecticut and to the administration is this: How many more have to die? How many more have to die? How many more young women have to be raped? How many more young Syrians are going to be tortured and killed? How many more? How many more before we will act? How many more? I would like to also ask, When will the President of the United States speak up in favor of these people who are fighting and dying for freedom? I thank my colleague from Connecticut for his continued involvement. He has shared the same experiences I have in refugee camps, meeting people who have been driven out of their homes, family members killed, tortured, young women raped as a matter of policy and doctrine of Assad's brutal forces.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, over the past few months there has been a disturbing stream of articles in the media and common among them, they cite elite, classified, or highly sensitive information in what appears to be a broader effort by the administration to paint a portrait of the President of the United States as a strong leader on national security issues--information for which there is no legitimate reason whatsoever to believe should be in the public domain. Indeed, the release of this information in these articles harms our national security and puts in danger the lives of the men and women who are sworn to protect it. What price did the administration apparently pay to proliferate such a Presidential persona--highly valued in an election year? Access. Access to senior administration officials who appear to have served as anonymous sources divulging extremely sensitive military and intelligence information and operations. With the leaks that these articles were based on, our enemies now know much more than they did the day before they came out about important aspects of our Nation's unconventional offensive capabilities and how we use them. Such disclosures can only undermine similar ongoing or future operations and, in this sense, compromise our national security. For this reason, regardless of how politically useful these leaks may have been to the President, they have to stop. These leaks have to stop. The fact that this administration would aggressively pursue leaks perpetrated by a 22-year-old Army private in the Wikileaks matter and former CIA employees in other leaks cases but apparently sanction leaks made by senior administration officials for political purposes is simply unacceptable. It also calls for the need for a special counsel to investigate what happened. I am also pleased to report that Chairman Carl Levin has agreed, at my request, to hold a hearing on these leaks in the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Senate Armed Services Committee has a responsibility here, and I am grateful that Chairman Levin has agreed to hold a hearing. In the latest of the recently published articles--published on June 1, 2012, just a few days ago--the New York Times documented in rich detail the President's secret decision to accelerate cyber attacks on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities with a computer virus that came to be known as Stuxnet. The author of the article, Mr. David Sanger, clearly states that former and current American officials spoke to him but refused to do so on the record because the program is both highly classified and parts of it are ongoing. I repeat, the administration officials discussed a most highly classified operation that is both highly classified and still ongoing, an operation that was clearly one of the most tightly held national security secrets in our country until now. And I might point out to my colleagues that this is all about the Iranian effort to acquire nuclear weapons, which is one of the most difficult national security challenges this Nation faces. Other recent articles divulged critical and classified information regarding U.S. plans to expand the secret drone campaign against terrorists in Yemen and the Horn of Africa. One of these pieces was a sorry excuse for journalism that the New York Times published on May 29, 2012, which Charles Krauthammer rightly observed should have been entitled ``Barack Obama--Drone Warrior.'' Finally, there was a recent so-called article about the so-called ``kill list''--the highly classified list of counterterrorism targets against whom the President has authorized lethal action--in other words, to kill. It was reported in that article on May 29, 2012, in the New York Times that David Axelrod, the President's chief political adviser--who is running the reelection campaign as we speak--began attending the meetings in which this list was discussed. I repeat, the President's campaign manager was present and attending the meetings where lists of possible people to be eliminated through drone strikes was discussed and decisions were made. The only conceivable motive for such damaging and compromising leaks of classified information is that it makes the President look good. These are not the only times I have been frustrated about national security-related leaks coming from this administration. The administration similarly helped journalists publish some of the highly sensitive tactics, techniques, and procedures that enabled our special operations forces--including the classified name of the unit involved-- to carry out the operation to kill Osama bin Laden last year. It is entirely possible that this flurry of anonymous boasting was responsible for divulging the identity of Dr. Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani doctor who assisted us in our search for Osama bin Laden and whose public exposure led to his detention and a 33-year prison sentence in Pakistan. His name was divulged by members of the administration, and he has been basically given a death sentence, a 33- year sentence in prison in Pakistan. Our friends are not the only ones who read the New York Times; our enemies do, too. Let me be clear. I am fully in favor of transparency in government. I have spent my entire career in Congress furthering that principle. But what separates these sorts of leaks from, say, the whistleblowing that fosters open government or a free press is that these leaks expose no violations of law, abuses of authority, or threats to public health or safety. They are gratuitous and utterly self-serving. These leaks may inhibit the Nation's ability to employ the same or similar measures in its own defense in the future. How effectively the United States can conduct unmanned drone strikes against belligerents, cyber attacks against Iran's nuclear program, or military operations against terrorists in the future depends on the secrecy with which these programs are conducted. Such activities are classified or enormously sensitive for good reason--in many cases, for reasons related to operational security or diplomacy. Their public disclosure should have no place in how this or any other administration conducts itself. These are the kinds of operations and intelligence matters no one should discuss publicly, not even the President. With this in mind, I call on the President to take immediate and decisive action, including the appointment of a special counsel, to aggressively investigate the leak of any classified information on which the recent stories were based and, where appropriate, to prosecute those responsible. A special counsel will be needed because the articles on the U.S. cyber attacks on Iran and expanded plans by the United States to use drones in Yemen were sourced to--and I quote from the articles--``participants in the [cyber-attack] program'' and ``members of the [P]resident's national security team.'' In the cyber attacks article, in particular, the author stated that ``current and former American officials'' spoke to him anonymously about the program because ``the effort remains highly classified and parts of it continue to this day.'' What could be worse? The suggestion that misconduct occurred within the executive branch is right there in black and white and is why a special counsel is needed. As part of this investigation, this special counsel should also scrutinize the book from which the New York Times cyber attacks article was adapted, which was just released yesterday, for other improper or illegal disclosures. Where classified information regarding cyber operations was leaked, the President should assess any damage that those leaks may have caused to national security and how that damage can be mitigated. In my view, the administration should be taking these leaks, apparently perpetrated by senior administration officials, as seriously as it pursued those made by relatively low government personnel such as the Army private in the WikiLeaks matter or the former CIA employee who provided the New York Times with classified information about U.S. attempts to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program. The failure of the administration to do so would confirm what today is only an inference-- that these leaks were, in fact, sanctioned by the administration to serve a pure political purpose. As I continue to closely monitor developments in this matter, I hope to be proved wrong. There is a Wall Street Journal article, ``FBI Probes Leaks about Cyberattacks by U.S.'' I am glad the FBI is going to probe that. It says Mr. Sanger, in an appearance on CBS News ``Face the Nation,'' suggested that deliberate White House leaking ``wasn't my experience.'' He added: I spent a year working on the story from the bottom up and then went to the administration and told them what I had. Then they had to make some decisions about how much they wanted to talk about . . . I'm sure the political side of the White House probably likes reading about the President acting with drones and cyber and so forth. National security side has got very mixed emotions about it because these are classified programs. Mr. Sanger again is authenticating that senior members of the White House and our intelligence community decided to talk to him about classified programs. Their motivation for doing so--perhaps we don't know particularly at this time, but I don't think one could argue that these articles have all conveyed the impression that the President is a very strong warrior in carrying out his responsibilities as Commander in Chief, something I have disputed as far as Iraq, Afghanistan, and other national security issues, which I will discuss on another day. I don't know how one could draw any conclusion but that senior members of this administration in the national security arena have either leaked or confirmed information of the most highly classified and sensitive nature. Some of these leaks have concerned ongoing operations. Since they were highly classified and sensitive information, that classification was there for a reason--the reason being that if that information was classified, it could harm our national security. These are very serious actions on their part. They are very serious actions when ongoing operations in the war against terror and the issue of Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons could trigger attacks either by Israel or the United States to prevent such an eventuality. We now find leaks which have exposed, not only to the American people but to the Iranians as well, exactly what American activity is of the most sensitive nature. This is not a proud day for the United States of America. I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senator Chambliss, he and I be permitted to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. McCAIN. As my colleague well knows, the leaks are part of the way the environment exists in our Nation's capital, and leaks will always be part of the relationship between media and both elected and appointed officials. I understand that. I think my colleague would agree there have been times where abuses have been uncovered and exposed because of leaks so this information was made public, and we have always applauded that. There has also continuously been a problem of overclassification of information so government officials don't have to--be it Republican or Democratic administrations--discuss what is going on publicly. But I have to tell my friend, I do not know a greater challenge that the United States faces in the short term than this entire issue of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. The President of the United States said it would be ``unacceptable.'' We all know the Israelis are going through an agonizing decisionmaking process as to whether they need to attack Iran before they reach ``breakout,'' which means they have enough parts and equipment to assemble a nuclear weapon in a short period of time. Here we are exposing something that, frankly, I was never told about. I was never informed of Stuxnet, and it is ongoing, at least according to the media reports. So aren't the Iranians going to learn from this? I would ask my colleague, aren't the Iranians going to become more and more aware? Drone strikes are now one of the leading methods of going after al- Qaida and those radical terrorists who are intent on destroying America. So now al-Qaida and our enemies, both real and others who plan to be, are very aware of the entire decisionmaking process in the White House. I guess the most disturbing part--and I would ask my friend--it is one thing to have a private, in the WikiLeaks matter, who had access to it, low-level members of certain agencies, one in the CIA who I know was prosecuted, but this is, according to the articles that are written, the highest levels in the White House are confirming this classified information and maybe even volunteering it, for all we know. But there, obviously, has been a very serious breach of perhaps the two most important challenges we face: the Iranian nuclear process and, of course, the continued presence and efforts of al-Qaida to attack America. I wonder if my friend from Georgia would agree that these are two of the most challenging national security issues America faces.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I finally add, the disturbing aspect of this is that one could draw the conclusion, from reading these articles, that it is an attempt to further the President's political ambitions for the sake of his election at the expense of our national security. That is what is disturbing about this entire situation. I see our friend from Oregon is waiting to illuminate us, so I yield the floor. I thank my friend from Oregon for his patience.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2107 and make it pending.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is not a new issue. This has been before this body on several occasions. I want to assure my colleagues that if the lobbyists for the pharmaceutical companies in this town are able to block this, we will be revisiting this issue. This is an issue of fundamental fairness and decency and giving Americans the opportunity to have access to very important medication that in many cases is lifesaving. It has been blocked by one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, that of the pharmaceutical companies. For years, along with many other Senators and the current occupant of the White House--the President of the United States, when he was a U.S. Senator, supported this amendment. I would love to see the administration weigh in and take the same position that then-Senator Obama took on this issue of basic and fundamental decency and fairness to people who are badly in need of medicine to, in many cases, literally save their lives. Industry opponents of the comprehensive importation proposals have found various ways to confuse the issue, raise red herrings about safety, or cut secret deals to block passage of reasonable and widely supported prescription drug importation programs. Let me give an example--this recently came up--of the activities of the pharmaceutical companies in the formulation of ObamaCare. ``GOP probe uncovers deal between Obama and drug companies,'' by Philip Klein, the senior editorial writer of the Washington Examiner. Three years ago, President Obama cut a secret deal with pharmaceutical company lobbyists to secure the industry's support for his national health care law. Despite Obama's promises during his campaign to run a transparent administration, the deal has been shrouded in mystery ever since. But internal emails obtained by House Republicans now provide evidence that a deal was struck and GOP investigators are promising to release more details in the coming weeks. What the hell?'' White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, who is now Obama's campaign manager, complained to a lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) in January 15, 2010 email. ``This wasn't part of our deal.'' This reference to ``our deal'' came two months before the final passage of Obamacare in an email with the subject line, ``FW: TAUZIN EMAIL.'' At the time Billy Tauzin was president and CEO of PhRMA-- And I might add, one of the highest paid lobbyists in history, millions of dollars-- the e-mail was uncovered as a part of Obama's closed-door health care negotiations that was launched by the House Energy and Commerce Committee oversight panel: ``In the coming weeks the Committee intends to show what the White House agreed to do as part of its deal with the pharmaceutical industry and how the full details of this agreement were kept from both the public and the House of Representatives,'' the committee's Republican members wrote in a memo today. On June 20, 2009, Obama released a terse 296-word statement announcing a deal between pharmaceutical companies and the Senate that didn't mention any involvement by the White House. ``The investigation has determined that the White House, primarily through Office of Health Reform Director Nancy Ann DeParle and Messina, with involvement from Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, was actively engaged in these negotiations while the role of Congress was limited,'' the committee members wrote. For example, three days before the June 20th statement, the head of PhRMA-- That is Mr. Tauzin-- promised Messina, ``we will deliver a final yes to you by morning.'' Meanwhile, Ms. DeParle all but confirmed that half of the Legislative Branch was shut out in an e-mail to a PhRMA representative: ``I think we should have included the House in the discussions, but maybe we never would have gotten anywhere if we had.'' What went on in the formulation of ObamaCare is still one of the worst, sleaziest exercises I have seen in my many years here, and this involvement by the pharmaceutical companies was probably the most egregious. All this amendment does is allow U.S. consumers who need more affordable prescription drug options to either go without their medications or pay higher prices than they could get from legitimate Canadian pharmacies. But that is not a reason. It is not a reason for us to stop fighting for those in the United States who need more affordable prescription medications. There are Americans in this country today who cannot afford their medications. They have a choice between eating or taking their prescription drugs. Meanwhile, there is a way for them to get much cheaper drugs, and this amendment does that. We will hear from the pharmaceutical company supporters in the Senate who will talk about safety and how Canadians don't have the same standards we do. Really? Do we really believe the Canadian regulations and oversight are any better or worse than the United States? To ensure that U.S. patients have at least one option, this amendment takes a very narrow approach to safe importation by focusing on legitimate Canadian pharmacies. Under this amendment the Secretary of Health and Human Services will certify ``approved Canadian pharmacies'' based on certain safety and quality criteria. To ensure that patients are not exposed to unsafe medications ``approved Canadian pharmacies'' can only sell drugs to U.S. customers that are the same as U.S. approved drugs. To protect U.S. patients against rouge distributors, a list of approved Canadian pharmacies must be published by the Secretary of Health and Human Services so Americans know which Canadian pharmacies are legitimate. The cost of health care, including prescription drugs, continues to increase. However, there is nothing in the underlying FDA bill that will bring down the cost of prescription drugs. I wonder if the bill should be enacted when it doesn't do anything to address costs. The quality of pharmaceuticals in this country is outstanding, and I recognize that. But don't we all know how expensive it is? For example, don't we know that in the United States of America, Nexium, 20-milligram, 30 tabs, is $195.99. The Canadian brand is $108.55, and Canadian generic is $69. For Plavix, the U.S. brand is $195; the Canadian brand, $132. I am sure many Americans whose health coverage does not include these very expensive pharmaceuticals would be eager to take advantage of the same quality brand of prescription drugs that are available at these pharmacies in Canada. As we all know, unemployment remains over 8 percent, and millions of families have mothers and fathers who remain unemployed or underemployed and have no health insurance coverage. But the unemployed and uninsured still have health conditions, and they need medications. Millions continue to search for more affordable ways to get their needed prescription drugs. Unfortunately, in my State many of my fellow citizens who cannot afford it go to Mexico to get drugs, and I cannot guarantee what they purchase there will always be what it is purported to be. That is not a criticism of my friends south of the border. But the fact is in Canada they have the same kind of process we do. Despite there being no official program to import medications from Canada, approximately 1 million U.S. consumers use their own money to safely get their medications from legitimate Canadian pharmacies. In Arizona, over 20,000 patients purchase their medications safely from Canadian pharmacies. In Florida over 85,000 patients purchase their medications safely from Canadian pharmacies. A recent study from Roger Bate, an AEI scholar, confirms that in drugs dispensed from legitimate Canadian pharmacies there was no failure of authenticity between drug samples obtained online from U.S. pharmacies compared to the same drug from Canadian pharmacies. Within the verified pharmacies U.S. prices on average were 52.5 percent higher than Canadian pharmacy prices. In other words, the drugs from Canadian pharmacy sites are the same dosage, form, and potency as drugs in the United States, only much less expensive. The drugs are the same as I mentioned. This amendment doesn't authorize insurance companies, huge pharmacy chains, or drug wholesalers to import massive quantities into the U.S. system. This is about safely allowing uninsured, unemployed, and the underemployed to individually import these drugs they need. So, please, somebody explain to me how we tell the struggling family who needs their medications that they cannot use their own money to get the same drug from legitimate Canadian pharmacies where the costs can be more than 50 percent lower than U.S. prices. It is not about the alarms of safety because this amendment requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations permitting individuals to safely import medications from Canada, and the following safety criteria must be met for a patient to import drugs from FDA- approved Canadian pharmacies: The prescribed drug must be dispensed by a licensed Canadian pharmacist; the prescribed drug must be for personal use in quantities that don't exceed a 90-day supply; the prescribed drug must be dispensed in accordance with a valid prescription issued by a physician licensed to practice in the United States; the imported drug must have ``the same active ingredient or ingredients, route of administration, dosage form, and strength as a prescription drug approved by the Secretary.'' The amendment recognizes that approved Canadian pharmacies meeting safety criteria can and should provide needed alternatives to U.S. patients using their own money to affordably obtain their medications. The Secretary is required to publish on the FDA Web site a list of ``approved Canadian pharmacies'' that meet the following stringent criteria: The pharmacy has been in existence for 5 years prior to enactment of the program and has a purpose other than to participate in the U.S.-Canadian safe drug importation program; the pharmacy operates in accordance with provincial pharmacy rules and regulations; the pharmacy complies with all inspection and data reporting procedures; the pharmacy agrees that labs approved by the Secretary shall be used to conduct product testing to determine the safety and efficacy of sample pharmaceutical products; the pharmacy does not resell products from online pharmacies located outside Canada to consumers in the United States. Safe drug importation is a bipartisan issue. People in all of our States are still struggling with family budgets, and the Senate cannot do anything to give patients more choices about where they can get their needed drugs because the drug industry opposes allowing individual Americans to use their own money to safely get the same drugs from Canada, and it doesn't make sense. Just a word about the types of medications that are eligible. I have been asked by colleagues whether biologic medicines can be part of the program. The answer is not unless they can be safely imported under the provisions of the amendment and regulations issued by the Secretary. The amendment doesn't discriminate against the type of conditions or medicines that patients should be able to safely import under this program. Not all biologics are the same. Some biologic medicines are available in capsules; others are injectable medications that require refrigeration. Some injectables don't require refrigeration and are shipped to patients throughout the United States every day. I don't believe U.S. patients should be necessarily prevented from saving money on biologics. If a biologic medicine cannot meet the various safety provisions in the amendment, it should not be eligible. If it can meet the requirements of the amendment, then a biologic can be available to U.S. patients. If the past is a prologue, then obviously this amendment will go down. Then after this amendment is rejected, I hope none of my colleagues have any curiosity about the way the American people feel about us; about the incredible, inordinate, illegitimate, outrageous influence of the pharmaceutical companies in America over the average American citizen. American citizens should be able to purchase pharmaceuticals from an approved pharmacy in Canada that many times is saving them half the money. I am sure the distinguished chairman, my friend from Iowa, knows how many families do not have prescription drug coverage who are making a choice today between eating and medicine. What are we going to do? We are going to turn down this commonsense amendment. Congratulations ahead of time to the corrupt pharmaceutical companies and their influence in the United States Senate and Capitol. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is a simple one. It creates a safe individual drug importation program only from approved Canadian pharmacies, overseen by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In a normal world, this would probably require a voice vote. But what we are about to see is the incredible influence of the special interests, particularly PhRMA, here in Washington, where people who cannot afford it will have to make a choice between eating and medicine. They will not be allowed to purchase a medication at less than half the price, many times, than they will in American pharmacies in Canada. So what you are about to see is the reason for the cynicism the American people have about the way we do business in Washington. PhRMA--one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington--will exert its influence again at the expense of average low-income Americans who will, again, have to choose between medication and eating.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not recognize that today's meeting of the Senate Committee on Armed Services to vote out its annual Defense authorization bill was the last for Richard F. Walsh of my staff. I know Dick's Winnebago is packed and idling outside and is probably out of gas because he delayed his retirement to see us through mark up, but I want to say a few words before we adjourn. I believe in the nobility of public service, and I think Dick exemplifies that, not just through his tenure here but throughout his entire career. Many may not know that Dick came to the Armed Services Committee after a distinguished 30-year career in the Navy, much of it as a judge advocate. He served in a number of challenging assignments, including counsel to the Chief of Naval Personnel; commander of the Naval Legal Service Office, National Capital Region; director of legislation in the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs; and executive director for Senate affairs under the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. In 2001, my good friend Senator John Warner hired Dick to handle personnel issues. From the halls of the service academies to the bones of Tripoli, Dick has seen it all. He has worked on issues of military pay, benefits, and education. Some were high profile, others not. Some were for the dogs, literally and figuratively. During his tenure, he strived to ensure fairness in the military justice system and remained vigilant so that military standards continue to reflect the honor of military service. I am proud of the work we did together on the GI bill to ensure the transferability of military benefits to family members. Through it all, he showed himself a consummate professional. Our committee works on issues vital to our national security and the men and women who protect it. Dick's work in particular over the last decade touches our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their families, daily, in very real, very meaningful ways. I know Dick will have mixed emotions when he leaves us, but he can take comfort in the knowledge that he has made a difference. So from one retired Navy officer to another, I wish Dick Walsh and his wife Gail fair winds and following seas as they board their Winnebago and push off for a well-earned retirement together.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement released yesterday by Senators Graham, Lieberman, and myself on the decision of Ambassador Ryan Crocker to depart his post in Kabul, Afghanistan.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I was deeply saddened to learn of the sudden death on April 17 of Stephen Daggett, a highly respected defense expert at the Congressional Research Service and an authority on the U.S. defense budget. Mr. Daggett provided Congress with authoritative analysis on many aspects of defense spending in the overall context of defense policy and U.S. national security strategy. His briefs to Members of Congress and his written reports captured the complexity of issues ranging from the Department of Defense's Quadrennial Defense Review to the budget priorities of the Armed Services. Very few ``defense experts'' could do what he could do. Mr. Daggett was admired by his professional colleagues in CRS and earned many awards for his dedication and outstanding performance. His appraisals were sought-after by Members of Congress and their staffs, by others in the Department of Defense, and by industry. Mr. Daggett's particular interest in providing an unbiased, unvarnished assessment to diverse constituencies, especially outside Congress, was laudable. In an era of wide political gulfs, he supplied irrefutable ground truths--which often became the basis for common understanding and problem solving. His accounts of the interrelated nature of defense policy, strategy, and budgets continue to be the standards of the discipline. Thought leaders on and off the Hill, in industry, associations and think tanks, on the right and the left, will feel his absence. Mr. Daggett was a national asset who provided the Congress with invaluable expertise on defense issues for over 20 years and during three U.S. wars. He will be sorely missed by his professional colleagues and friends, by his wife, Diana, his sons Thomas and Sam, and by the many in Congress who depended on him.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I would like to thank both leaders for their hard work in getting what I believe is one of the more important sense-of-the- Senate resolutions achieved here. It is very difficult. I think words matter. The fact that this resolution points out that we need a comprehensive policy that includes economic sanctions, diplomacy in military planning, capabilities, and options; that this objective is consistent with the one stated by President Barack Obama in the State of the Union Address where he said, ``Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal''--I think this is an important resolution. I thank the majority leader. I also point out that the final part of it says that nothing in the act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran or Syria. First of all, it is not an authorization. Second of all, I wonder if we ought to include Canada and maybe Brazil and other countries along with that since this resolution contemplates in no way anything concerning Syria, but I guess we could probably throw it in. However, I will not ask for a unanimous consent to amend to add Canada, although the Canadians are very upset because they have no teams in the finals of the National Hockey League Stanley Cup championship series. Again, I thank both the Senate majority leader and the Republican leader for the work they did and also our friend Senator Menendez, who was also an important factor in getting this done. I do not object.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. So doesn't that mean the United States of America would reserve all options in case of an unacceptable situation where the Iranians continued--and we have seen no deviation from that path-- toward the acquisition of a nuclear weapon?

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

Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it true that the President of the United States said that it was ``unacceptable'' for the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon? I have a series of questions.

Mr. McCAIN. So isn't it true that we are having this debate about whether this amendment or this legislation could be construed as an authorization or opening the door for military action; that the administration's policy is already very clear that it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon? And I am sure that, over time, the three of us could talk for a long time about the implications for the entire region of Iran, not just the threat to Israel but the entire region of an Iranian government which is, quote, going to wipe Israel off the map, which then, of course, would force other nations in the region to develop nuclear weapons. Isn't it true that it has been a matter of national policy--both Republican and Democratic--that it is unacceptable? And that does not mean we automatically would use military force, but it does mean we would have to react to the development on the part of the Iranians of a nuclear weapon. So this resolution we are considering is no different in any way--in fact, it is less specific than what the President of the United States has said and what I believe most every Member of the U.S. Senate is on record one way or the other saying: that the development of a nuclear weapon by Iran would be an unacceptable situation.

Mr. McCAIN. I know our friend Senator Menendez is going to speak, but this is not any change in American policy toward Iran, both Republican and Democratic, and that is that there is an existential threat to the State of Israel and other countries in the region, other Arab countries in the region, that would be posed if the Iranians continued on their development of nuclear weapons. So this resolution is an important statement on the part of the Senate and Congress, but to somehow say this is a major change in policy of any kind obviously flies in the face of the record of this President and previous Presidents as regards this issue. I also would like to thank the Senator from New Jersey for his continued contributions to these national security issues.