John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Today the President of the United States traveled to Ft. Bragg, NC, to mark the end of the war in Iraq and to pay tribute to the more than 12.5 million men and women of our Armed Forces who have served and fought there since 2003. Those Americans deserve all of the praise and recognition they receive, for they have given up their comfort and safety. They have given up less demanding and more lucrative jobs. They have given parts of their bodies and cherished parts of their lives. They have given the quiet little sacrifices that often go unmentioned but often hurt the most: the anniversaries spent alone, the birth of a child missed, the first steps not seen, and the first words not heard. They have given all of that, and always they are prepared to give more. They deserve to be honored by us all. I know the President's words of praise and appreciation for our troops today were sincere and heartfelt. I have every reason to believe he will do all in his power to keep his promises to take care of our troops and their families at home and to never forget how those noble Americans have done far more than their fair share for the betterment of our Nation. The President is a patriot and a good American, and I know his heart swells with the same pride and sense of awe all of us feel when we are in the presence of our men and women in uniform. These are humbling feelings, feelings of wonderment and gratitude, and they unite all Americans whether they supported the war in Iraq or not. But let me point out a fact the President did not acknowledge today, which is this: Our men and women in uniform have been able to come home from Iraq by the tens of thousands over the past 3 years, and not just come home but come home with honor having succeeded in their mission for the simple reason that the surge worked. All of this is possible because in 2007, with the war nearly lost, we changed our strategy, changed our leaders in the field, and sent more troops. This policy was vehemently opposed at the time by then-Senator Obama and now President of the United States and his senior leaders right here on the floor of this Senate. On January 10, 2007, the day the surge strategy was announced, then- Senator Obama said: I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. On November 15, 2007, when it was clear to GEN David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker and many of us that the surge was working, then-Senator Obama said: The overall strategy is failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders. Finally, on January 28, 2008, when it was undeniable the surge was succeeding, he had this to say: President Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true. At the time the President's preferred alternative was to begin an immediate withdrawal and have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of 2009. I will let future historians be the judge of that proposed policy. All I will say is that for 3 years, the President has been harvesting the successes of the very strategy he consistently dismissed as a failure. I imagine this irony was not lost on a few of our troops at Fort Bragg today, most of whom deployed and fought as part of the surge. The fact is, the President has consistently called for a complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq at the earliest possible date, and he has never deviated from this position as President. Indeed, he always reaffirmed his campaign promise to end the war in Iraq and withdrawal of our troops. So perhaps it should not have come as a surprise when the President announced in October that he was ending negotiations with the Iraqi Government over whether to maintain a small number of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond this year to continue assisting Iraq security forces. I continue to believe this decision represents a failure of leadership, both Iraqi and American; that it was a sad case of political expediency triumphing over military necessity, both in Baghdad and in Washington; and that it will have serious negative consequences for Iraq's stability and our national security interests. I sincerely hope I am wrong, but I fear that GEN Jack Keane, who is one of the main architects of the surge, could be correct again when he said recently: We won the war in Iraq, and we are now losing the peace. Let me be clear. Like all Americans, I too am eager to bring our troops home. I do not want them to remain in Iraq or anywhere else for a day longer than necessary. But I also agree with our military commanders in Iraq who were nearly unanimous in their belief that some U.S. forces, approximately 20,000, should remain for a period of time to help the Iraqis secure the hard-earned gains that we had made together. All of our top commanders in Iraq, by the way, chosen by the President of the United States--all of our top commanders in Iraq-- General Petraeus, General Odierno, General Austin, all of them believed we needed to maintain a presence of U.S. troops there, and they consistently made that clear to many of us during our repeated visits to Iraq. On February 3, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, GEN Lloyd Austin, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Jim Jeffrey testified to the Committee on Armed Services that for all of the progress the Iraqi security forces had made in recent years--and it has been substantial-- they still have critical gaps in their capabilities that will endure beyond this year. Those shortcomings included enabling functions for counterterrorism operations, the control of Iraq's airspace, and other external security missions, intelligence collection and fusion, training and sustainment of the force. Our commanders wanted U.S. troops to remain in Iraq beyond this year to continue assisting Iraqi forces in filling these gaps in their capabilities. Indeed, Iraqi commanders believed the exact same thing. In August, the chief of staff of Iraq's armed forces could not have been any clearer. He said: The problem will start after 2011. The politicians must find other ways to fill the void after 2011. If I were asked about the withdrawal, I would say to politicians, the U.S. Army must stay until the Iraqi Army is fully ready in 2020. During repeated travels to Iraq with my colleagues, I have met with all of the leaders of Iraq's major political blocs, and they too said they would support keeping a presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. So let's be clear. This is what our commanders recommended, it is what Iraqi commanders recommended, and it is what all of Iraq's key political leaders said privately that they were prepared to support. So what happened? What happened? Advocates of withdrawal are quick to point out that the current security arrangement which requires all U.S. troops to be out of Iraq by the end of this year was concluded by the Bush administration. That is true. But it is also beside the point. The authors of that agreement always intended for it to be renegotiated at a later date to allow some U.S. forces to remain in Iraq. As former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whose State Department team negotiated the security agreements, has said: There was an expectation that we would negotiate something that looked like a residual force for our training with the Iraqis. Everybody believed it would be better if there was some kind of residual force. So if that is not the reason, I ask again: What happened? The prevailing narrative is that the U.S. and Iraqi leaders could not reach agreement over the legal protections needed to keep our troops in Iraq. To be sure, this was a matter of vital importance. But while this may have been a reason for our failure, the privileges and immunities issues are less causes than symptoms of the larger reason we could not reach agreement with the Iraqis. Because of his political promise to fully withdraw from Iraq, the President never brought the full weight of his office to bear in shaping the politics and the events on the ground in Iraq so as to secure a residual presence of U.S. troops. This left our commanders and our negotiators in Baghdad mostly trying to respond to events in Iraq, trying to shape events without the full influence of the American President behind them. Last May, I traveled to Iraq with the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham. We met with all of the major Iraqi leaders. All of them were ready to come to an agreement on a future presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. But as Prime Minister Malaki explained to us, the administration at that time and for the foreseeable future had not given the Iraqi Government a number of troops and missions that it would propose to keep in Iraq. For weeks after, the administration failed to make a proposal to the Iraqis, and when the Iraqis finally united in August and publicly asked the administration to begin negotiations, the response from Washington was again characterized by delay. This ensured that a serious negotiation could not begin much less succeed. I know Iraq is a sovereign country. I know it has an elected government that must answer to public opinion. I know there could be no agreement over a future U.S. military presence in Iraq if Iraqis did not agree to it and build support for it. So this is as much a failure of Iraqi leadership as it is of American leadership. But to blame this on the Iraqis does not excuse the fact that we had an enormous amount of influence with Iraq's leaders and we did not exercise it to the fullest extent possible to achieve an outcome that was in our national security interest. In fact, in the view of many, they deliberately refused to come up with a number. They deliberately refused to engage in serious negotiation with the Iraqis, with the ultimate purpose of fulfilling the Presidents's campaign pledge that he would get all U.S. troops out of Iraq. That is not a violation of sovereignty. That is diplomacy, that is leadership. Leaders must shape events and public opinion not just respond to them, and starting in early 2009, from their desire to accelerate our withdrawal from Iraq faster than our commanders recommended, to their hands-off approach to the Iraqi process of government formation last year, to their record of delay and passivity on the question of maintaining a presence of U.S. troops beyond this year, this administration has consistently failed at the highest level to lead on Iraq. I say again, perhaps this outcome should not have been a surprise. It is what the President has consistently promised to do, and that decision makes good political sense for this President. But such decisions should not be determined by domestic politics. The brave Americans who have fought so valiantly and have given so much did so not for political reasons but for the safety and security of their fellow citizens, for their friends, for their families, for their children's future, and for us. This is a decisive moment in the history of America's relationship with Iraq and with all of the countries of the broader Middle East. This is a moment when the substantial influence we have long enjoyed in that part of the world could be receding--in fact, it is receding. We cannot allow that to be our Nation's future. We must continue to lead. We must not let short-term political gains dictate our longer term goals. We need to continue working to shape a freer, more just, and more secure future for both Iraq and for people across the Middle East, for it is in our own national security interest to do so. Over 4,000 brave, young Americans gave their lives in this conflict. I hope and I pray--regardless of these decisions made in large part for political reasons--that their sacrifice was not in vain. I hope their families will not mourn the day their sons and daughters went out to fight for freedom for the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, it is clear that this decision of a complete pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq was dictated by politics and not our national security interests. I believe history will judge this President's leadership with the scorn and disdain it deserves. 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 come to the floor today to discuss my support of S.J. Res. 10, which would require a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Let me start off by saying that we need this amendment to protect the American taxpayer and bring back fiscal discipline to Congress. We need this amendment not because the American taxpayer is taxed too little, it is because Washington in particular, Congress--spends too much. Finally, we need this amendment to show the American taxpayer that we are serious about eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication from the Federal budget and are serious about putting our country back on a path to prosperity, not bankruptcy. The Nation's debt now stands at the unsustainable level of $15.1 trillion. The Federal Government is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar spent. According to the CBO, by 2021 debt held by the public will reach 82 percent of GDP. Without real and meaningful action by Congress to reform the way we do business, the Nation's debt will balloon to well over 100 percent by 2035. CBO projects that the cost of simply paying the interest on all of this debt will total $4.5 trillion over the next decade. And we wonder why there is so much uncertainty in our economy, why businesses are not expanding and creating jobs that we so desperately need, why the approval rating of Congress is at alltime lows--and, may I add, justifiably. The writing is on the wall, and that writing says that Congress can no longer allow politics and special interests to direct how hard-earned taxpayer dollars are spent. We must make hard choices now and live within our means as every American family is required to do. The President has said that we do not need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to cut spending and balance the budget. While that may be true, it is not the reality. When the Senate passed a balanced budget amendment in 1982, the national debt was $1.1 trillion. In 1997, when the Senate failed by one vote to pass a balanced budget amendment, the national debt was over $5 trillion. Today, it is over $15 trillion. Unfortunately, Congress has proven time and time again that they are unable to cut spending and must be required by law to do so. S.J. Res 10 is a strong, meaningful, and commonsense balanced budget amendment that will reassure financial markets and the American people, therefore, providing confidence that our economy so desperately needs. First and foremost this constitutional amendment will require the President to lead by example and submit a balanced budget to Congress. Since being elected, President Obama has failed to send a balanced budget to Congress for consideration. S.J. Res. 10 would also require Congress to pass a balanced budget that limits outlays to 18 percent of GDP. In addition, it would require a vote of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress in order to raise taxes on the American people. This provision is vitally important to ensure that we are not punishing the American taxpayer by making them pay for out of control spending by Washington. Finally, S.J. Res. 10 would require a vote of three-fifths of both Houses of Congress to increase the Nation's debt limit. This constitutional amendment also includes limited waivers that would, for example, allow Congress during a declaring of war to enact deficit spending or to raise the debt limit by a simple majority vote. My colleagues on the other side have brought forth their own balanced budget amendment; however, their proposal fails to ensure that Congress will make the hard choices necessary to solve our current and long-term fiscal crisis. For example, the Democrats' balanced budget amendment does not apply to Social Security spending. According to the 2011 report by the Social Security Trustees, Social Security faces permanent deficits unless the Congress reforms the system. In fact, the program is projected to face a deficit of $46 billion this year. The Social Security disability trust fund is projected to become insolvent in 2018. We cannot be serious about solving our Nation's financial problems unless we include the Social Security Program, which is one of the largest drivers of future debt. In addition, their balanced budget amendment does not cap spending at 18 percent of GDP, it does not require a supermajority of Congress to raise taxes and does not require a supermajority of Congress to raise the debt limit. As we know too well, Congress has never voted against raising the debt limit. This week, the Senate has the ability to show the American people that they are serious about fixing our fiscal crisis by adopting this balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This balanced budget amendment is a vital step in ensuring that future generations will have the same opportunities that all of us here in this body have experienced. I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 10. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am very moved by the words of the Senator from Hawaii--not only his words but the example he has set for all Americans of heroism and sacrifice and service to his country, and a most valued Member of the U.S. Senate but, more importantly, a genuine American hero. I thank the Senator from Hawaii for his continued service and his continued inspiration to all Americans, especially those who are serving in the military today.

Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am deeply touched by the kind and undeserved words of my old friend of many years, the distinguished majority leader. We have had our spirited combat and our agreements, but we share a commitment--the two of us--for the betterment of this Nation. I also remind my friend from Nevada what he already knows, but I remind him, it does not take a great deal of talent to get shot down. I was able to intercept a surface-to-air missile with my own airplane, which will not go down in the Aviation Hall of Fame, not to mention the several aircraft I destroyed at taxpayers' expense in previous times. So I thank my dear friend from Nevada, as well, for his kind words.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about Russia, and to review--particularly, in light of the recent election in Russia and the relationship we have--the state of what this administration has trumpeted as a so-called reset of U.S.-Russia relations, especially in light of the flawed Duma election that occurred this weekend, and in light of my strong belief that the growing demand for dignity and uncorrupt governance that has defined the Arab world this year may impact Russia as well. Let me once again make clear that I am not opposed to U.S. engagement with Russia. I am not opposed to working consistently in good faith with Russia to find more ways to improve our relationship. To the contrary, we must continue to actively seek ways to cooperate with Russia in mutually beneficial ways. It is in our national interest to do so. And whatever can be said about the administration's policy toward Russia, no one can accuse them of a lack of sincerity and diligence in trying to increase cooperation with Russia. I would simply ask, What has been accomplished? What has been the result of the administration's good-faith desire for a so-called reset of relations with Russia? The answer, I am afraid, is precious little. Yes, there have been some areas of progress, but even those minor steps may now be getting rolled back. There has been a lot of news recently pertaining to our relationship with Russia and Russia's future development, which my colleagues may have missed. It is very important to spend some time today and review these new developments. Let's start with the issue of missile defense. My colleagues will remember the debate we had here last year over the ratification of the New START treaty. In that debate, we spent a lot of time discussing the Russian threat to withdraw from the treaty if the United States took any further steps to build up its missile defense capabilities. Specifically, the Russian Government stated that the New START treaty ``may be effective and viable only in conditions where there is no qualitative or quantitative build-up in the missile defense system capabilities of the United States of America.'' The Russian Government stated that in the ratification of the treaty. They went on to say that if those conditions were not met, Russia would exercise its right to withdraw from the treaty. Many of us felt strongly at the time, and feel strongly now, that it was a mistake to ratify a treaty on which the two signatories had two completely antithetical positions about the implications of that treaty, particularly as it pertains to one of our most vital national security programs--our missile defenses. Some of us thought and argued at the time that the United States should not voluntarily sign up to a treaty that would likely be used by the Russian Government as a source of political pressure and blackmail to get us to make concessions on our missile defenses. Well, here we are, 1 year later, and let's review some of what the Russian Government has been saying and doing in this regard. On November 23, we read an article from Bloomberg entitled ``Russia Prepares to `Destroy' U.S. Shield.'' This is what it said: Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ordered the military to prepare the capability to ``destroy'' the command structure of the planned U.S. missile-defense system in Europe. Russia may also station strike missiles on its southern and western flanks, including Iskander rockets in the Kaliningrad exclave between Poland and Lithuania, both members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union, Medvedev said on state television today. ``I have ordered the armed forces to develop measures to ensure, if necessary, that we can destroy the command and control systems'' of the U.S. shield, Medvedev said. ``These measures are appropriate, effective and low-cost.'' On the same day, we read the following in an article in the New York Times entitled ``Russia Elevates Warning About U.S. Missile-Defense Plan in Europe.'' I quote from the article: Russia will deploy its own missiles and could withdraw from the New Start nuclear arms reduction treaty if the United States moves forward with its plans for a missile-defense system in Europe, President Dmitri A. Medvedev warned on Wednesday. ``I have set the task to the armed forces to develop measures for disabling missile-defense data and control systems,'' Mr. Medvedev said. . . . But it was Mr. Medvedev's comments about the New Start treaty, put into effect this year, that suggested a darkening tone in what has been a steady drumbeat of warnings out of Moscow in recent days over the plans for a missile-defense system based in Europe. ``In the case of unfavorable development of the situation, Russia reserves the right to discontinue further steps in the field of disarmament and arms control,'' Mr. Medvedev said in a televised address from his residence outside Moscow. ``Given the intrinsic link between the strategic offensive and defensive arms, conditions for our withdrawal from the New START treaty could also arise,'' he said. If all this were not troubling enough, we then read on November 28 an article from a Russian state news agency entitled ``Russia's NATO Envoy to Visit China, Iran, Over Missile Defense.'' Here is what was reported: Russian envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin will visit China and Iran in mid-January to discuss a U.S.-backed global missile defense network. ``We are planning to visit both Beijing and Tehran soon under the Russian president's directive, to discuss the planned deployment of a global missile defense network,'' Rogozin said during a roundtable meeting at the lower house of the Russian parliament. On November 28, the Russian Government went even further, not just using the New START treaty to try to blackmail us into weakening our missile defenses but threatening to cut off NATO's supply routes into Afghanistan as well, which was another area of limited progress that the administration hailed as part of its so-called reset policy. This is how the Wall Street Journal described it last Monday in an article entitled ``Russia Considers Blocking NATO Supply Routes.'' Russia said it may not let NATO use its territory to supply troops in Afghanistan if the alliance doesn't seriously consider its objections to a U.S.-led missile shield for Europe, Russia's ambassador to NATO said Monday. If NATO does not give a serious response, ``we have to address matters in relations in other areas,'' Russian news services reported Dmitri Rogozin, ambassador to NATO, as saying. He added that Russia's cooperation on Afghanistan may be an area for review, the news services reported. So let me summarize: After being assured that the New START treaty would contribute to the improvement of U.S.-Russia relations, and that the Russian Government would not use the treaty against us as blackmail, we are now in a situation where the President of Russia is threatening to deploy ballistic missiles to destroy U.S. missile defense systems in Europe; where he is openly threatening to withdraw his government from the New START treaty if the United States does not make unacceptable concessions on its missile defense programs; and where the Russian Ambassador to NATO is threatening to cut off NATO's supply routes to Afghanistan and planning to visit China and Iran with the purpose of deepening Russia's cooperation with those governments against U.S. missile defenses. I think it is safe to say that the effect to date of the New START treaty on the U.S.-Russia relationship is rather less positive than originally advertised. The problems in our relationship with Russia go well beyond missile defense, as important as that is. In recent months, as the Assad regime in Syria has slaughtered roughly 4,000 of its own citizens who are seeking a democratic future, what has been the Russian Government's response? With the help of China, Russia has been absolutely shameless in blocking any serious action in the United Nations Security Council, including by vetoing a toothless security resolution that would not have even imposed sanctions but merely hinted at the possibility of sanctions. At the same time, while the Assad regime's bloody rampage has continued against the Syrian people, the Russian Government has continued to serve as its primary supplier of weaponry. In fact, last week in a story entitled ``Russia Delivers Missiles to Syria,'' AFP reported that despite the brutal violence of the Assad regime, and over Israel's strenuous objections, Russia delivered 72 supersonic cruise missiles to the Syrian Government worth at least $300 million. Then there is Russia's continued interference in the sovereign territory and internal affairs of the Republic of Georgia, a country that the Russian military invaded in 2008 and continues to occupy to this day. Two weeks ago there was a Presidential election in the breakaway state of South Ossetia, which is part of Georgia's sovereign territory. But when Moscow's preferred candidate was overwhelmingly defeated in those elections, the supreme court of this Russian proxy state declared the results illegal and nullified the vote. Russian parliamentarians applauded. Finally, there is the unfortunate issue of Russia's backsliding on human rights and democracy. A few months ago, President Medvedev announced, as we all know, that he would step aside in Russia's election next year so that Vladimir Putin could once again run for the Presidency. Some see this as a sign that Putin will come back. I object to that characterization, because I do not believe Putin ever left. He has been running things in Russia with no less informal power than he had as President. Not surprisingly, over the past 3 years, the state of human rights and freedom in that country has gotten no better. In fact, things have gotten worse. Perhaps the clearest evidence of this fact is the tragic and heartbreaking case of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax attorney working for an international company, Hermitage Capital, that had invested in Russia. Magnitsky did not spend his life as a human rights activist or an outspoken critic of the Russian Government. He was an ordinary man. But he became an extraordinary champion of justice and the rule of law in a Russia where those principles have lost nearly all meaning. What Magnitsky uncovered was that a collection of Russian Government officials and criminals associated with them colluded to defraud the Russian state of $230 million. The Russian Government, in turn, blamed the crime on Hermitage Capital and threw Magnitsky in prison in 2008. Magnitsky was detained for 11 months without trial. Russian officials, especially from the interior ministry, pressured Magnitsky to deny what he had uncovered, to lie and recant. But he refused. He was sickened by what his government had done and he refused to surrender. As a result, he was transferred to increasingly more severe and more horrific prison conditions. He was forced to eat unclean food and drink unclear water. He was denied basic medical care even as his health continued to deteriorate. In fact, he was placed in even worse conditions until, on November 16, 2009, having served 358 days in prison, Sergei Magnitsky died. He was 37 years old. The Magnitsky case shined a light on the tragic realities of human rights abuses in Russia today, and the overwhelming cruelty and injustice that Magnitsky endured has made it impossible for the government and the people of Russia to ignore. Even the Public Oversight Commission of the City of Moscow for the Control of the Observance of Human Rights in Places of Forced Detention, a Russian organization empowered by Russian law to independently monitor the country's prison conditions, concluded the following in a report this year: A man who is kept in custody and is being detained is not capable of using all of the necessary means to protect either his life or his health. This is a responsibility of a state which holds him captive. Therefore, the case of Sergei Magnitsky can be described as a breach of the right to life. The members of the civic supervisory commission have reached the conclusion that Magnitsky had been experiencing both psychological and physical pressure in custody, and the conditions in some of the wards . . . can be justifiably called torturous. The people responsible for this must be punished. The case of Sergei Magnitsky is but an extreme example of a problem that is all too common in Russia today, the flagrant violations of human rights and the rule of law committed by the Russian Government and its allies outside of government. We have seen the problem in the show trial of Mikhail Khordokovsky, which I would remind my colleagues was unfolding at the exact same time that this body was debating the ratification of the New START treaty last December. After the Russian Government stole Khordokovsky's oil company, it then turned around and charged him for the crime. Even more absurdly, as he was nearing the end of his 8-year prison sentence, the Russian state then charged him again for virtually the same crime. Before the judge had even handed down his verdict, Prime Minister Putin said, Khordokovsky ``should sit in jail.'' And lo and behold, that is exactly what the judge ultimately ruled, sentencing Khodorkovsky to 5 additional years in prison on top of the 8 years he had already served. Earlier this year, not surprisingly, Khodorkovsky lost his appeal of this ruling. In a report released this year, Freedom House concluded that the cases of Magnitsky and Khodorkovsky: Put an international spotlight on the Russian state's contempt for the rule of law. . . . By silencing influential and accomplished figures such as Khodorkovsky and Magnitsky, the Russian authorities have made it abundantly clear that anyone in Russia can be silenced. The violations of human rights in Russia also extend to the deep and worsening problem of corruption, which perhaps as much as any other issue mobilizes the frustration and anger of the Russian public. In its annual index of perceptions of corruption, the independent organization Transparency International ranked Russia 154th out of 178 countries. That means that Russia is perceived as more corrupt than Pakistan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. The World Bank considers 122 countries to be better places to do business than Russia. I would point out that one of those countries is the Republic of Georgia, which is ranked 12th by the World Bank. When we consider the pattern of corruption and abuse the Russian Government has perpetrated over many years, it is not surprising to see the outpouring of anger and dissatisfaction that Russian voters expressed in this weekend's parliamentary elections. Unfortunately, the conduct of that election and especially its aftermath has only validated the growing frustration that Russians feel for their rulers. Before the ballots were even cast, a noted Russian election monitoring organization called Golos was subjected to intimidation, harassment, political pressure, and fines. The subsequent election has been criticized by impartial international observers, including the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which documented in its preliminary assessment numerous irregularities and other efforts by the government to sway a vote in its favor. Instances of ballot stuffing have been documented. For example, in Chechnya, it was reported that 99 percent of the population participated in the election and 99.5 percent of them voted for Putin's party. That seems a little suspicious, especially considering that the Putin government has waged years of bloody warfare in Chechnya. Despite the fact that the recent Duma election fell short of international standards and violated Russia's law, substantially fewer Russian voters chose to cast their vote for Putin's party, including in its stronghold and home base of St. Petersburg. This frustration has subsequently poured into the streets where Russian citizens have peacefully sought to demonstrate against the recent election fraud. The Russian Government has responded, in turn, by arresting hundreds of opposition leaders, democracy and human rights activists, journalists, and other members of civil society, including Boris Nemtsov, Alexey Navalny, and Ilya Yashin. Those men and women are exercising universal human rights and fundamental freedoms which should not be a crime in any country. I call on the Government of Russia to release every Russian citizen who is unjustly detained for political purposes and to clarify the whereabouts and conditions of those individuals. Mr. President, throughout this year, I have said that the demand for dignity, justice, and democracy that is shaking the Arab world to its foundations will not be confined to that one region alone. It will spread. It will inspire others. It will demonstrate to others that the frustrations, indignities, and lack of hope they may feel today need not be the realities they endure tomorrow. They can change those realities. They can change their destiny. They can change their countries. And it appears that message may be resonating with the people in Russia. We should hope that it does resonate and resonate in a peaceful manner, because we agree with a growing number of Russians who clearly believe they deserve better. They deserve a government that respects and responds to their aspirations for a better life. They deserve the power to freely elect their own leaders. The political development of Russia is more than an issue of moral principle for the United States. It is closely tied to our national interests. We have seen in the past that when autocratic governments feel they are losing legitimacy among their people at home, they try to demonize others, both in their country and beyond it, and redirect their public's anger against imaginary enemies. We have seen how the Putin government has done this in the past. We have seen its attempts to paint the United States and our NATO and other allies as enemies of Russia and to lash out against us in the hope of mobilizing public support at home. This is why the growing pattern of confrontation from the Russian Government that we have seen in recent months--over missile defense, resupply efforts into Afghanistan, and other issues--should be so concerning to us and why we must understand that the actions of the Russian Government cannot be separated from its character. In fact, as Russia's Government grows less tolerant of its own people's rights at home, we should not be surprised if it treats us the same way. As I have said before, I believe we need greater realism about Russia, but that is not the same as pessimism or cynicism or demonization. I am ultimately an optimist, and I often find sources for hope in the most hopeless of places. One year ago, after languishing in prison for 7 years and facing the near certainty of enduring many more, Mikhail Khodorkovsky spoke before his sentencing about the hopes of the Russian people as they watched his trial. He said: They are watching with the hope that Russia will after all become a country of freedom and of the law. Where supporting opposition parties will cease being a cause for reprisals. Where the special services will protect the people and the law, and not the bureaucracy from the people and the law. Where human rights will no longer depend on the mood of the tsar, good or evil. Where, on the contrary, the power will truly be dependent on the citizens and the court, only on law and God. For me, as for anybody, it is hard to live in jail, and I do not want to die there. But if I have to, I will not hesitate. The things I believe in are worth dying for. That there are still men and women of such spirit in Russia is cause for hope. And eventually--maybe not this year or next year or the year after that but eventually--the Russian people will have a government that is worthy of their aspirations, for equal justice can be delayed and human dignity can be denied but not forever. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Last week, AOL Defense published an interview with VADM David J. Venlet, who heads up the Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter Program for the Department of Defense. In this interview, Admiral Venlet candidly offered his concerns about where the Joint Strike Fighter Program stands today. His professional judgment, while welcome in its forthrightness, is deeply troubling. His concerns, which I share, are what bring me to the floor this afternoon. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of Admiral Venlet's remarks as contained in the AOL Defense article entitled ``JSF's Build and Test Was `Miscalculation,' Adm. Venlet Says; Production Must Slow.''

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will briefly summarize the history of the Joint Strike Fighter Program that has taken us where we are today. In a nutshell, the Joint Strike Fighter Program has been both a scandal and a tragedy. The JSF Program has been in the development phase for 10 years. Over that time, it has been the beneficiary of an estimated $56 billion of taxpayer investment. Yet after so much time and so great an investment by the taxpayers, we still don't have an aircraft that provides the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps with the combat capability they need. In fact, flight testing sufficient to demonstrate the full mission systems and weapons delivery capability of F-35 aircraft has not even started. At this point, this most advanced phase of flight testing won't begin any sooner than 2015. Developing and buying these aircraft and building the facilities to support them was originally supposed to cost $233 billion. However, according to the April 2011 Government Accountability Office report on the Joint Strike Fighter, these costs are now estimated to be closer to $383 billion. Let me repeat that. The original cost was estimated to be $233 billion. Now it is estimated to be $383 billion. That is an increase of some $150 billion of the taxpayers' money. This increase in total development and acquisition costs will only get worse when the Department announces a new baseline cost estimate, which resulted from a second restructuring of the program over the last 2 years. Overall, the schedule for the end of the development phase and start of full-rate production has slipped 5 years since the current baseline was set in 2007, and it is now planned for 2018. I want to point out that during this period of time, the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, has continued to make record profits. In fact, they just announced their third-quarter profits to be $700 million. Here is the manufacturer that was supposed to build an aircraft that was going to cost $233 billion, and now it is estimated at close to $383 billion--a $150 billion increase--and it is well known now that there will be significant cost increases to follow in light of the production manager, Admiral Venlet's remarks. In 2001, 10 years ago, the Department of Defense told Congress that the Joint Strike Fighter would cost about $69 million per aircraft. But according to the GAO's report from April, the cost of each F-35 aircraft has now risen to about $133 million per plane. Including the cost of research, development, and testing across the entire program, the unit cost of each individual aircraft goes up to $156 million. In inflation-adjusted dollars, that is about double the original 2001 estimate. Unfortunately, we know that the estimate will go up substantially when the Pentagon releases its latest projections, with the costs of restructuring the program factored in and a new cost baseline is established for the program. As if these costs of developing and buying the aircraft were not high enough, the Pentagon now estimates that operating and sustaining these new aircraft may cost as much as $1 trillion over their planned service life. Thankfully, I think we have reason to believe this jaw-dropping number may be artificially high and can be reduced. But keep in mind that the rule of thumb is that the cost of developing and buying a major weapons system tends to be about one-third of its total cost; the other two-thirds is in operating and sustaining it. So with the development and procurement costs of the F-35 already approaching $400 billion, it would not be unreasonable to expect sustainment costs of about $800 billion over the F-35's lifespan. That amounts to about a $1.2 trillion investment of taxpayer resources, which makes the F-35 the most expensive weapons program in history. Over the nearly 10-year life, so far, of the F-35 program, Congress has authorized and appropriated funds for 113 of these weapons systems, but as of today the program has delivered just 18 aircraft, most of which are being used for flight testing. The first production aircraft intended for training just started to be delivered this summer--3 years late. In July, the numbers came in on how much these early production model jets will cost compared to original estimates. That was a shocking $1 billion over the original estimate of about $7 billion. Under the cost- plus contracts for these early production aircraft, taxpayers will be on the hook for $771 million to cover their share of this cost overrun for these first 28 aircraft. Let me repeat that taxpayers of America are now on the hook for $771 million in cost overruns to cover their share for the first 28 aircraft, and Lockheed Martin will absorb the cost of $283 million. Maybe that helps you understand why Lockheed Martin, in the third quarter of this year, has been able to announce a profit of some $700 million. The cost of the first 28 is a 15-percent cost overrun when you total everybody's share. So for about $8.1 billion, we get 28 aircraft at a cost per aircraft of about $289 million. Just last week, we learned that the costs associated with the fourth lot of these early production aircraft may be as high as 10 percent over that contract's $3.46 billion target cost. That is a $350 million overrun, with only about 40 percent of the work completed to date. That tells us that the costs of the program have still not been contained despite 2 years of very concentrated effort by the Pentagon to bring costs under control, knowing the future of the program hangs in the balance. This brings us to where we are today and the context of Admiral Venlet's remarks. The Pentagon has recently completed its analysis of how much the next lot--the fifth lot--of early production aircraft ``should cost'' and is negotiating with Lockheed Martin on who will bear the cost of changes to the design and manufacturing of the aircraft that could result from thousands of hours of flight testing that lie ahead. It is at this exact moment that the excessive overlap between the development and production that was originally structured into the JSF Program--called concurrency--is now coming home to roost. It means that you deliver aircraft to the owners--in this case, the Air Force--and at the same time continue testing. That is something we warned against over and over as not having worked, but it was done in order to make an effort to have some semblance of their schedule being adhered to of delivery of aircraft. Lockheed Martin doesn't want to bear the risk of new discoveries that may require retrofit or redesign of the aircraft. Based on the in-depth studies the Department has conducted to date, Admiral Venlet told the publication AOL Defense last week that the Joint Strike Fighter Program needs to slow down production and deliveries of the aircraft. He explained that this was necessary to open the aircraft and install fixes to numerous structural cracks and ``hot spots'' the program has discovered in the plane in the last year or so. He estimated that the work needed to remedy these cracks could add an additional $3 million to $5 million per aircraft. Bear in mind that this revelation comes on top of the fact that the Department has just reduced the latest F-35 purchase--what will be lot five--by five jets. Admiral Venlet concluded that even as the Pentagon negotiates with Lockheed Martin on lot five of the aircraft under the terms of a fixed-price contract, there is much ``heavy learning'' that remains in the program. Here is what Admiral Venlet said: The analyzed hot spots that have arisen in the last 12 months or so in the program have surprised us at the amount of change and at the cost. Most of them are little ones, but when you bundle them all up and package them and look at where they are in the airplane and how hard they are to get at after you buy the jet, the cost burden of that is what sucks the wind out of your lungs. I believe it's wise to sort of temper production for a while here until we get some of these heavy years of learning under our belt and get that managed right. And when we've got most of that known and we've got the management of the change activity better in hand, then we will be in a better position to ramp up production. Mr. President, 2001 was the year we decided to build this aircraft. So here we are 11 years later, and the manager of the program says, ``And when we've got most of that known and we've got the management of the change activity better in hand, then we will be in a better position to ramp up production.'' I am not making this up. Admiral Venlet, who overseas the JSF Program for the Pentagon, is basically saying that even after the program was restructured 2 years ago by Secretary Gates to add $7.3 billion and 33 more months to development, there is still too much concurrency baked into this program. In other words, the overlap between development and production is still too great to assure taxpayers that they will not have to continue paying for costly redesigns or retrofits due to discoveries made late in production. In that context, ramping up production--even under the program's revised schedule--would not be a move in the right direction. I absolutely agree. When the head of the most expensive, highest profile weapons system program in U.S. history effectively says: Hold it, we need to slow down how much we are buying, we should all pay close attention. What does this mean in terms of the pending negotiations for the next production lot? As I said a few days ago during my opening remarks on Senate consideration of the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, I strongly support the Department's position. I think Admiral Venlet's concerns are completely consistent with the view reflected in the Senate Armed Services Committee's markup of the Defense authorization bill. As we negotiate to buy more early production jets at a time when most of the developmental testing of the aircraft is yet to be done, Lockheed Martin must be held increasingly accountable for cost overruns that come as a result of wringing out necessary changes in the design and manufacturing process for this incredibly expensive weapons system. For this reason, the Department must negotiate a fixed-price contract for this next lot of aircraft that requires Lockheed Martin to assume fully any cost overruns. I expect that this contract negotiation will reflect unit costs that are lower than for the last lot purchased and that the contract will ensure shared responsibility for reasonable concurrency cost increases. Put simply, the deal we negotiate on this next production lot must be at least as good, if not better, than the deal we negotiated under the previous one; otherwise, I can only conclude that we are moving in the wrong direction, and it will only be a matter of time before the American people and the Congress and our allies lose faith with the F- 35 program, which is already the most expensive weapons program in history. One thing is clear: The culprit is, among other things, excessive concurrency, which is overlap of trying to develop an advance aircraft at the same time as we buy production model aircraft intended for training and operations. The danger of excessive concurrency is the grand, enormously expensive lesson of the Joint Strike Fighter Program, a lesson we continue to overlook at our peril: Trying to execute a strategy for the acquisition of a major weapons system that has too much concurrency based into it under a cost-type contract is absolutely a recipe for disaster. In so many different aspects, the F-35 program truly represents a tragedy. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps desperately need a new aircraft to take the place of the current strike and fighter jets that have been at war for most of the last 10 years. These well-worn legacy aircraft are coming to the end of their service lives, but we are saddled with a program that has little to show for itself after 10 years and $56 billion in taxpayer investment that has produced less than 20 test and operational aircraft, a bill for $\3/4\ billion, and the promise of considerable ``heavy learning'' yet to go. Admiral Venlet's message last week clearly conveyed the path we are on is neither affordable nor sustainable. On that fact he and I are in total agreement. But that agreement provides very little solace. If things don't improve quickly, taxpayers and the warfighters will insist all options will be on the table, and they should be. Mr. President, I came to the Senate floor today to talk specifically about the F-35 aircraft. I will be coming to the floor again on the whole issue of what is, unfortunately, a culture of corruption in the Pentagon as far as weapon systems acquisition is concerned. Time after time, with regard to the future combat system, the F-35, the shipbuilding, the littoral combat ship, there is story after story after story of cost overruns, of cancellation, of delays, of incredible cost to the taxpayer. We never should have gotten into it. We simply cannot afford to do it now. We have to reform the culture of corruption that pervades the Pentagon, and we must reform the way we acquire the weapons and the systems necessary to defend this Nation. I am not saying there aren't success stories. Certainly, there are. MRAP is an example of a success story. But when we look at the tens of billions and billions of dollars that have been wasted on research and development on weapons systems that never got off the ground, when we look at what happened to the future combat systems, the littoral combat ship, now the F-35, there must be reform or the taxpayers and citizens of America will lose faith in our ability to defend this Nation at a cost that is reasonable in these extremely difficult economic times for all Americans. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1080 Withdrawn

Mr. McCAIN. It is agreeable on both sides.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. McCAIN. I wish to give 3 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina, preceded by 2 minutes from the Senator from Idaho, and 2 minutes for the Senator from New Hampshire if she arrives.

Mr. McCAIN. If we can then--obviously, we can call a vote at any particular time. So I would suggest again that we try to dispose of other amendments after the vote on the first Feinstein amendment, and then we will try to dispose of additional amendments between the disposition of the first Feinstein amendment and the second one, with the hour of debate equally divided, and Senator Feinstein can begin.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I wish to yield----

Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator want to unanimous-consent that?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, before we begin the debate, and with the Senator from California on the floor, for the benefit of our colleagues and the chairman, there are two pending Feinstein amendments, as I understand it. The Senator from California has agreed to the half hour equally divided as the chair just said, and then I understand the Senator from California has agreed to the second amendment at 4 p.m.; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. So prior to that, I would ask my friend the chairman if we could have an hour of debate starting at 3 o'clock equally divided before the vote at 4:00 on the second Feinstein amendment.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Yet in the Supreme Court decision reference is made to an individual who was captured during World War II in the United States of America; isn't that correct? It was referenced in the Supreme Court decision.

Mr. McCAIN. Would the Senator yield for a question on that subject point?

Mr. McCAIN. The individual who was an American citizen--Mr. Hamdi, the subject of the U.S. Supreme Court case--was an American citizen captured in Afghanistan; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. The reason why I raise the question is because the Senator from Illinois, and others, have cited the fact that Hamdi was an American citizen but captured in Afghanistan, not in the United States of America. Yet isn't it a fact that the decision in Hamdi also made reference to a person who was apprehended in the United States of America? This is what is bizarre about this discussion, it seems to me.

Mr. McCAIN. So I guess my question is, it is relevant where the citizen of the United States was captured. Because the decision made reference to people captured both in the United States and outside the United States.