John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from South Carolina after I make a few remarks.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is pretty obvious that the Senate feels that its priorities--and I think they are well placed, particularly in light of the fact that the Fourth of July recess was canceled because of the issue of the debt limit and the deficit and our lack of action and need for action on the issue--I understand that and have suggested and agreed that this resolution on Libya be delayed. However, I would point out that the Senate does need to have a debate about United States policy and military action in Libya. Whether my colleagues are supportive of what we are doing in Libya or not I think is an issue that needs to be debated on the floor of the Senate. I believe the Senate does play a constitutional role and maybe even a more unique one than the other body. So I think it is time we did have a debate, discussion of this issue, and an opinion rendered in keeping with the War Powers Act. Unfortunately, the administration has made it far more difficult than it otherwise might have been if we had carried out our responsibilities and the President carried out his responsibilities some months ago. The fact is this conflict would have been over if we had taken a leadership role and declared a no-fly zone when the rebel forces were on their way to Benghazi. The fact is, if the United States had used the full weight of its air assets in this conflict, Qadhafi would be gone now. And I would tell my colleagues, have no doubt, Qadhafi will go. He will go. The question is when. And what role did the United States of America play in supporting these people who are fighting for freedom? What role did the United States of America play in trying to free up Qadhafi's ill-gotten gains and have them given to the Transitional National Council? What role did the United States play in leading from behind in Libya? The United States of America leads, not NATO. We lead NATO. And when someone says NATO is leading on this conflict, I would remind my colleagues, of the 28 members of NATO, only 8 members are actually in the fight, and one of our major allies, Germany, has taken a hike. So if we had used the AC-130 gunships, the A-10 Warthog close air support capability, Qadhafi would be gone now. But the fact is, he will go, and it is up to us, in my view, to express our support of people who are seeking the same rights and freedoms that are guaranteed to us. I would remind my colleagues who said we never should have been involved in any way, it is a fact that Qadhafi and his forces were at the gates of Benghazi, a city of 700,000 people, and Qadhafi has said he would go house to house and kill--and kill--whoever they thought had resisted them. We say we should never have allowed Srebrenica, where 8,000 people were massacred. We say we should never have allowed Rwanda to happen. We say we should never have allowed the Holocaust to happen. The United States did the right thing by stopping Qadhafi's forces at the gates of Benghazi and preventing the massacre of I do not know how many thousands of innocent civilians. There is no doubt what Qadhafi has promised if he is able to remain in power--a man who has the blood of Americans on his hands because of the bombing of Pan Am 103, because of terrorist acts he supported in Africa--he will do so again and has pledged to do so. When my colleagues ask what American national security interests are at stake, look at the man's past actions and look at what he has promised to do if he is able to stay in power; and that is, to pose a direct threat to the United States of America's vital national security interests. We are involved in Libya. My colleague from South Carolina will testify we are providing refueling. We are providing intelligence. We are providing all kinds of assistance. We are including using Predators, which are killing the bad guys. So to somehow allege that the United States is not engaged in hostilities which would trigger the War Powers Act is simply sophistry. The Senate has been silent on this issue for too long, in my view. But I also want to caution my colleagues about preventing United States action as well as authorizing. The last time the Congress of the United States of America engaged in cutting off funding was at the end of the Vietnam war. Whether historians or people happen to acknowledge it, a lot of bad things happened after we cut off funding in Vietnam. Amongst them was millions of Vietnamese put in reeducation camps and thousands slaughtered. So I would caution my colleagues about actions of Congress which prohibit certain actions on the part of the administration. But most of all, America should lead. We should use our air assets, not our ground assets, to get rid of this brutal dictator and his regime. Every day that goes by innocent civilians in Libya are wounded and killed. So I would ask my colleague from South Carolina if he has a few words, but also to address the issue of how much U.S. involvement actually is there, which would then--by most objective observers-- trigger the Congress's requirement to act in keeping with the War Powers Act and our constitutional obligations.

Mr. McCAIN. I would ask my friend, is it not true that we are providing tanker support, logistics support, Predator strikes, intelligence, and all kinds of assets to those eight nations that are involved in the fight? When we are using Predators and killing people, that pretty well fits the definition of ``hostilities.'' Yet, for reasons which are still not clear to me, the administration fails to acknowledge that. Could I also say one thing that is very concerning as well is this recognition of the Transitional National Council. I know my colleague-- because we were just in Turkey--noticed that another country, Turkey, one of the most important nations in the Middle East, just recognized the Transitional National Council, froze the assets that Qadhafi has. Yet this administration refuses to do so. There is some $30 billion, I am told, of Qadhafi assets that we could freeze and make available to the Transitional National Council. It may require some legislative action, but it requires administration leadership. They could then pay people, could provide arms and weapons to their own people, as well as subsidies for the government. Again, an example of leading from behind--the French, the Italians, the Turks, and other nations have all now recognized the Transitional National Council. Yet the United States has failed to do so.

Mr. McCAIN. I have been assured personally by the leadership of the Transitional National Council--by the way, one who has a doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh, and their Finance Minister was an economics professor at the University of Washington. So let's dispel any illusions about we do not know who they are. They are good and decent people who have risen up against an oppressive and repressive dictator and murderer. They want to reimburse the United States for our expenses, the way the Kuwaitis and the Saudis did after Operation Desert Storm. But the point is that, again, anybody who believes that it is not in America's national security interest to see Qadhafi gone has paid no attention to his words and his actions. History will record how the United States stood on people who were struggling both peacefully and where it necessitated the use of force of arms, is where the United States of America was.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. What is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN. In a few minutes we will be casting, I am sure, a 100-0 vote to confirm General David Petraeus as the new Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and obviously his nomination is supported by all Members of the Senate, and I am sure all Americans, especially those, such as the Senator from South Carolina and myself, who have had the great privilege and honor of knowing General Petraeus for many years and watching him lead the men and women serving in our military in a fashion that I have never seen surpassed. The Senator from South Carolina has had the unique privilege and responsibility to serve under General Petraeus in uniform, because, as most of our colleagues know, the Senator from South Carolina also serves as a colonel in the South Carolina National Guard and in the legal corps as a JAG officer. The Senator from South Carolina has worked with General Petraeus both in Iraq and Afghanistan on many of the important issues concerning detainees as well as other issues. Before I ask the Senator from South Carolina for his comments, I wish to repeat what I said before. I don't believe that in my life, which has been blessed to know many outstanding military leaders of all branches of the service, I have ever quite encountered a military leader or civilian leader, for that matter, with the combination of charisma and intellect General Petraeus possesses. The Senator from South Carolina, the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and I had the unique opportunity, among many visits we made to Iraq and Afghanistan, one Fourth of July in 2007 to be present at a reenlistment ceremony that took place in the palace in Baghdad. There were a couple of thousand spectators and there were well over 200 young men and women who had agreed to reenlist, to continue to serve in Iraq when they could have fulfilled their commitment they made to serve in the military and gone home to their families and a grateful nation. Instead, they chose to reenlist, to stay, and continue the fight. Part of that ceremony was to administer the oath of citizenship to over 75 people who were not born in the United States of America, who were not citizens, who were green card holders, who were legally in the United States as green card holders but had joined the military in order to serve and to achieve an accelerated path to citizenship. What struck me at that ceremony was that in the front row there were three empty seats with boots on them of individuals who were green card holders who were scheduled to take the oath of citizenship and who had been killed in the previous few days in action, serving their country in Iraq. I was privileged to speak. The Senator from South Carolina spoke. The Senator from Connecticut spoke. But when General David Petraeus spoke to those assembled men and women who are serving their country, it was very obvious of the not only respect but admiration every one of those young Americans felt for the inspirational leadership General Petraeus had provided them. I might point out it was a time when most experts and many politicians and Members of this body predicted the surge would fail. Well, I think what they didn't take into account was the incredible leadership and implementation of a strategy that was embodied by GEN David Petraeus and the young men and women who are serving. So I am confident as we continue the fight against al-Qaida and the radical Islamic extremists who want to attack and destroy our country, that now General Petraeus, soon to be Director of the CIA, will provide our Nation with the very best strategy, tactics, thought, and action to keep our Nation safe. I don't very often come and talk about nominees and spend the Senate's time, but I know I express the appreciation and affection of all those men and women, both serving now and in the past, who had the great honor and privilege of serving under General Petraeus and to wish him a well done and smooth sailing and following winds as he assumes his new responsibilities which will continue to keep America safe.

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

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for the purpose of speaking as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I speak today on a day that appears to be positioned between two very consequential decisions. Yesterday, the President announced his plan to draw down U.S. forces in Afghanistan, pledging to pull out 10,000 troops this year and the remaining 23,000 surge forces by September of 2012. Tomorrow, the House of Representatives will likely vote on a measure to limit the use of U.S. funding for U.S. military operations in Libya to only ``nonkinetic activities''--in other words, noncombat activities--meaning no limited strike missions to suppress air defenses or predator strikes against Qadhafi forces, which we are doing very little of already. The only military actions for which the Commander in Chief could commit our Armed Forces would be supporting missions from search and rescue to aerial refueling to intelligence. Those are the provisions in what is very likely to be voted on and passed by the House of Representatives tomorrow. Some may not see a connection between these decisions, but the connection is profound. We are having a profound debate in this country right now that I suspect will continue for some time. Critical questions are being asked and discussed: How should we in the United States define our national interests? What is the proper role for America in the world? How do we balance our commitments abroad and the global demands for U.S. leadership with an American public that is justifiably war weary after a decade of conflict and that is rightly concerned with our unsustainable levels of government spending and national debt? These are vital questions. They will determine the future of our Nation and, indeed, the future of the world. Reasonable Americans can disagree over what the right answers are. Although our disagreements may be heated and passionate, we should always remember that we are all Americans, that we are all patriotic, and that we all want to do what is best for the Nation we love. The discussions we are now having over Libya and Afghanistan go right to the heart of this broader debate, and this is where we see the real practical impact of the decisions all of us in public life must make and be accountable for. We are all trying to define America's interests and role in the world, to separate that which we can and must do from that which is beyond our capacity and our benefit to try to accomplish. We are all striving for a balanced approach to America's interests abroad, and it is for that reason I am very concerned about both the President's decision on Afghanistan and the House's pending vote on Libya. I agree with the President that, thanks especially to the sacrifice and courage of our fighting men and women, we are making amazing progress in Afghanistan. This progress is real and it is remarkable. But as our commanders on the ground all point out, it is also fragile and reversible. Our commanders also say what will be decisive is the fighting season next year--the warmer spring and summer months--when the insurgency historically picks up its operations after resting and regrouping a bit during the colder months. This will be our opportunity to consolidate our gains in southern Afghanistan and begin transitioning more and more of that fight to our Afghan friends, while increasing numbers of U.S. forces shift their main effort to eastern Afghanistan where the Haqqani network, al- Qaida, and other regional militant groups are still present and operating actively. The reason our commanders had to take this sequential approach is because they did not get all the forces they requested in 2009--40,000 troops as opposed to the 33,000 the President gave them. What this means in practice is that our commanders in Afghanistan still need next year's fighting season to deal the same crushing blow to al-Qaida and the Taliban in the east as our forces have dealt them in the south. However, under the President's plan, which calls for having all of our surge units out of Afghanistan by September, those troops will begin flowing out of Afghanistan right at the time the Taliban, al-Qaida, and their allies begin stepping up their operations, especially in eastern Afghanistan. This is the irony of it all. The President's decision in December 2009 had the effect of making this war longer and costlier by forcing our commanders to tackle our enemies in southern and eastern Afghanistan sequentially over 2 years rather than simultaneously in one decisive action over 1 year. Now, just at the moment when our troops could finish our main objective and begin ending our combat operations in a responsible way, just when they are 1 year away from turning over a battered and broken enemy in both southern and eastern Afghanistan to our Afghan partners, the President has now decided to deny them the forces our commanders believe they need to accomplish their objective. I hope I am wrong, I hope the President is right, that this decision will not endanger the hard-won gains our troops have made with the decisive progress they still need to make next year. I hope that proves correct. But I am very concerned the President's decision poses an unnecessary risk to the progress we have made thus far to our mission and to our men and women in uniform. Our troops are not exhausted. They are excited that after 10 years we finally have a winning strategy that is turning this war around. Anyone who says that our troops are exhausted should go out and talk to them. They want to stay at this until the job is done. We have sacrificed too much. America has a vital national interest in succeeding in Afghanistan. After all that we have given to this mission, the money we have committed to it, the decade we have devoted to it, and the precious lives we have lost throughout it, why would we do anything now that puts our mission at greater risk of failure? I would offer the same counsel to my Republican friends in the House with regard to our mission in Libya. I know my colleagues in Congress are angry with the administration and its Libya policy, and they have every right to be. From the disrespect and disregard the administration has shown Congress, to their bizarre assertion we are not really engaged in the hostilities in Libya, to the lack of resolve with which they have prosecuted this fight and made the public case for it, the administration has done an unfortunate amount to earn the ire of Congress. But we can't forget the main point: In the midst of the most ground-breaking geopolitical event in two decades, at least, as peaceful protests for democracy were sweeping the Middle East, with Qadhafi's forces to strike at the gates of Benghazi, and with Arabs and Muslims in Libya and across the region pleading for the U.S. military to stop the bloodshed, the United States and our allies took action and prevented the massacre that Qadhafi had promised to commit in a city of 700,000 people. By doing so, they began creating conditions that are increasing the pressure on Qadhafi to give up power. Yes, the progress toward this goal has been slower than many had hoped, and the administration is doing less to achieve it than I and others would like. But here are the facts: We are succeeding in Libya. Qadhafi is going to fall. It is just a matter of time. So I would ask my colleagues: Is this the time for Congress to turn against this policy? Is this the time to ride to the rescue of an anti- American tyrant, when the writing is on the wall that he is collapsing? Is this the time for Congress to declare to the world and to Qadhafi and his inner circle, to Qadhafi's opponents who are fighting for their freedom, and to our NATO allies who are carrying a far heavier burden in this conflict than we are, is this the time for America to tell all of these people that our heart is not in this and that we won't see this mission through; that we will abandon our best friends and allies on a whim? This all comes back to how we, as Americans, define our national interests and act on them. We can all agree that none of us are averse to doing what is necessary to defend America and our allies when we face a clear threat in the world. In that way, we are like any other nation in history. But what sets us apart from those other nations, what makes us exceptional, what makes us the United States of America is that we define our interests more broadly than that. Our interests also encompass the fact that we are the leader of the free world; that the circle of nations that want us to play that role is growing, not diminishing; and that this position of leadership also confers responsibilities that are greater than our own immediate and material self-interests. It is the responsibility we have to the universal ideals of freedom and justice and human rights, of which our Nation is both the greatest embodiment and the greatest champion in human history. That is not to say we can or should be involved everywhere. That is not to say we must act wherever and whenever our ideals are threatened. This is not to say military action is always the right answer, nor is this a recipe for endless conflict and commitment. America is powerful, but we are not omnipotent. We must make hard choices about where to spend our blood and treasure. There will be more occasions than not when we will choose not to intervene, either because our interests do not warrant it or because we don't have the capacity to do so or because greater American involvement will not improve the situation. When we choose not to intervene forcefully in places where the cause of justice is calling out to us, be it Sudan or the Congo or Syria or countless other places where I and others have argued against intervention, we will be assailed as hypocritical and inconsistent. That is unfair, but it is nothing new for America. What we can never forget is that our Nation's interests are forever colored by our values. America has always believed that the success of freedom and democracy in other lands does not just make our world more just; it makes it a safer, more secure, and better place for Americans and our children. We can never afford to define our interests so narrowly that we would have sat back as an anti-American tyrant slaughtered his own people, thereby destroying one of the most historic attempts by millions of Arabs and Muslims to build better and more stable governments. That would have served neither our moral nor our strategic interests. Similarly, once we are engaged in a fight, as we are now in Libya and Afghanistan, and when we still have a clear path to succeed, as we do in both countries, it is in our moral and strategic interests to finish the job even if it is difficult and costly and unpopular. Failure is the only cost we truly cannot afford. America cannot make the world perfect, but we can make it better, freer, more just, more prosperous. That is what has always made us an exceptional nation. That is what has always been the greatest source of our national security. That is what has always made us America. And that is how we must remain. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following articles be printed in the Record: the Wall Street Journal article from this morning entitled ``Libya and Republicans,'' the Washington Post editorial from this morning entitled ``End of a Surge,'' and the Wall Street Journal article entitled ``Unplugging the Afghan Surge.''

Mr. McCAIN. I note my friend from South Carolina here today. The Senator from South Carolina, as many of us know, is a reserve colonel-- a terrible mistake by the promotion boards--in the U.S. Air Force JAG Corps. He has spent more time in Afghanistan than any Member of Congress, including more than most Members of Congress combined. He has observed closely in Afghanistan the surge, its success, its impediments. I ask unanimous consent to engage in colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN. I wonder if my friend saw General Keene, the architect of the surge in Iraq, on one of the networks this morning describing his views on the President's decision concerning drawing down our troops from Afghanistan.

Mr. McCAIN. According to the Washington Post this morning, the editorial ``End Of A Surge. The mismatch between President Obama's strategy and his troop withdrawal timetable'': Mr. Obama's withdrawal decision, with no clear basis in strategy, increases the risk of failure. The only other issue--and I think the Senator from South Carolina is very well qualified to describe it--I hear over and over, especially from those who are opposed to our involvement in this conflict, the troops are exhausted, the troops are exhausted. Yet General Keene, this morning on one of the news channels, said: They are not exhausted. They are exhilarated because they are winning. They know they have sacrificed so many of their comrades, killed and wounded. They are not exhausted. But they certainly, certainly don't want to come home in defeat, something that I saw a long time ago.

Mr. McCAIN. Can I say in summary--and I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his forbearance--I agree with the Senator from South Carolina, obviously. I say to my friends on the other side of the Capitol, although it may fall on deaf ears at this moment, I hope they know that we understand their frustration about the President's failure to recognize the War Powers Act exists, and the failure of the administration to consult and brief Members of Congress on the situation in Libya, about many aspects of the way this conflict has been conducted where America is ``leading from behind.'' But I want to repeat what the Senator from South Carolina said: This could mean the end of NATO. If NATO cannot defeat a third-rate military power, then NATO is probably going to go out of business. If we do not succeed in Libya and oust Qadafi, as is the President's policy, you will see a center for terrorist activities, you will see a return of al-Qaida to Libya--certainly a dramatically increased influence. And, frankly, it will send a message to the world that even though we say about a dictator and a brutal killer and murderer such as Qadafi that it is our policy that he be removed from power, we are either unwilling or unable to do so. I again caution my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I hope they would not do anything that would enhance the ability of this brutal dictator to remain in power and continue to perpetrate the murders and crimes for which he is so well known. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to join the Senator from Massachusetts, who will shortly submit the product of many hours of bipartisan cooperation and negotiation, an authorization for the limited use of military force in Libya. The resolution, as will be introduced by my colleague from Massachusetts, as I mentioned, would authorize the President to employ the U.S. Armed Forces to advance U.S. national security interests in Libya as part of the international coalition that is enforcing U.N. Security Council resolutions in Libya. It would limit this authority to 1 year, which is more than enough time to finish the job, and it makes clear that the Senate agrees with the President that there is no need and no desire to commit U.S. conventional ground forces in Libya. I will be the first to admit that this authorization is not perfect and it will not make everyone happy. It does not fully make me happy. I would have preferred that this authorization make clear that our military mission includes the President's stated policy objective of forcing Qadhafi to leave power. I would have preferred that it urge the President to commit more U.S. strike aircraft to the mission in Libya so as to help bring this conflict to a close as soon as possible. And I would have preferred that it call on the President to recognize the Transitional National Council as the legitimate voice of the Libyan people so as to free Qadhafi's frozen assets for the Transitional National Council to use on behalf of the Libyan people. I have called on the administration to do all of these things for some time, and I do so now again. That said, this authorization has been a bipartisan effort. My Republican colleagues and I have had to make compromises, just as have the Senator from Massachusetts and his Democratic colleagues. I believe the end result is an authorization that deserves the support of my colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, and I am confident they will support it. I know the administration has made it clear that it believes it does not need a congressional authorization such as this because it is their view that U.S. military operations in Libya do not rise to the level of hostility. I believe this assertion will strike most of my colleagues and the Americans they represent as a confusing breach of common sense, and it seems to be undercut by the very report the administration sent to Congress which makes clear that U.S. Armed Forces have been and presumably will continue to fly limited strike missions to suppress enemy air defenses, to operate armed Predator drones that are attacking Qadhafi's forces in an effort to protect Libyan civilians, and to provide the overwhelming support for NATO operations, from intelligence to aerial refueling. Indeed, we read in today's New York Times that since the April 7 date that the administration claims to have ceased hostilities in Libya, U.S. warplanes have struck at Libyan air defenses on 60 occasions and fired about 30 missiles from unmanned drones. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks the article from today's New York Times entitled ``Scores of U.S. Strikes in Libya Follow Handoff to Libya.''

Mr. McCAIN. I certainly agree that actions such as these do not amount to a full-fledged state of war, and I will certainly grant that I am no legal scholar, but I find it hard to swallow that U.S. Armed Forces dropping bombs and killing enemy personnel in a foreign country does not amount to a state of hostilities. What is worse, this is just the latest way in which this administration has mishandled its responsibility with regard to Congress. The President could have asked to authorize our intervention in Libya months ago, and I believe it could have received a strong, though certainly not unanimous, show of support. The administration's disregard for the elected representatives of the American people on this matter has been troubling and counterproductive. The unfortunate result of this failure of leadership is plain to see in the full-scale revolt against the administration's Libya policy that is occurring in the House of Representatives. As I speak now, our colleagues in the House are preparing a measure that would cut off all funding for U.S. military operations in Libya, and they plan to vote on it in the coming days. I know many were opposed to this mission from the beginning, and I respect their convictions. I myself have disagreed and disagreed strongly at times with aspects of the administration's policy in Libya. But at the end of the day, I believe the President did the right thing by intervening to stop a looming humanitarian disaster in Libya. Amid all our arguments over prudence, legality, and constitutionality of the administration's policy in Libya, we cannot forget the main point: In the midst of the most groundbreaking geopolitical event in two decades, as peaceful protests for democracy were sweeping the Middle East, with Qadhafi's forces ready to strike at the gates of Benghazi and with Arabs and Muslims in Libya and across the region pleading for the U.S. military to stop the bloodshed, the United States and our allies took action and prevented the massacre Qadhafi had promised to commit in a city of 700,000 people. By doing so, we began creating conditions that are increasing the pressure on Qadhafi to give up power. Yes, the progress toward this goal has been slower than many had hoped and the administration is doing less to achieve it than I and others would like, but the bottom line is this: We are succeeding, Qadhafi is weakening. His military leaders and closest associates are abandoning him. NATO is increasing the tempo of its operations and degrading Qadhafi's military capabilities and command and control. The Transitional National Council is gaining international recognition and support and performing more effectively, and though their progress is uneven, opposition forces in Libya are making strategic gains on the ground. We are all entitled to our opinions about Libya policy, but here are the facts. Qadhafi is going to fall. It is just a matter of time. So I ask my colleagues, is this the time for Congress to turn against this policy? Is this the time to ride to the rescue of a failing tyrant when the writing is on the wall that he will collapse? Is this the time for Congress to declare to the world, to Qadhafi and his inner circle, to all of the Libyans who are sacrificing to force Qadhafi from power, and to our NATO allies who are carrying a far heavier burden in this military operation than we are--is this the time for America to tell all of these different audiences that our heart is not in this, that we have neither the will nor the capability to see this mission through, that we will abandon our closest friends and allies on a whim? These are the questions every Member of Congress needs to think about long and hard but especially my Republican colleagues. Many of us remember well the way some of our friends on the other side of the aisle savaged President Bush over the Iraq war and how they sought to do everything in their power to tie his hands and pull America out of that conflict. We were right to condemn that behavior then, and we would be wrong to practice it now ourselves simply because the leader of the opposite party occupies the White House. Someday--I hope soon--a Republican will again occupy the White House, and that President may need to commit U.S. armed forces to hostilities. So if my Republican colleagues are indifferent to how their actions would affect this President, I would urge them to think seriously about how a vote to cut off funding for this military operation can come back to haunt a future President when the shoe is on the other foot. The House of Representatives will have its say on our involvement in Libya this week. The Senate has been silent for too long. It is time for the Senate to speak, and when that time comes I believe we will find a strong bipartisan majority in favor of authorizing our current military operations in Libya and seeing this mission through to success. That is the message Qadhafi needs to hear; it is a message Qadhafi's opponents, fighting to liberate their nation, need to hear; and it is a message America's friends and allies need to hear. So let's debate this authorization, but then let's vote on it as soon as possible. I wish to thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his hard work on this resolution. I understand he will be submitting it very soon. I hope the majority leader of the Senate will schedule a debate and vote on this resolution as soon as possible. It is long overdue. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, June 20, 2011] Scores of U.S. Strikes in Libya Followed Handoff to NATO (By Charlie Savage and Thom Shanker) Washington.--Since the United States handed control of the air war in Libya to NATO in early April, American warplanes have struck at Libyan air defenses about 60 times, and remotely operated drones have fired missiles at Libyan forces about 30 times, according to military officials. The most recent strike from a piloted United States aircraft was on Saturday, and the most recent strike from an American drone was on Wednesday, the officials said. While the Obama administration has regularly acknowledged that American forces have continued to take part in some of the strike sorties, few details about their scope and frequency have been made public. The unclassified portion of material about Libya that the White House sent to Congress last week, for example, said ``American strikes are limited to the suppression of enemy air defense and occasional strikes by unmanned Predator'' drones, but included no numbers for such strikes. The disclosure of such details could add texture to an unfolding debate about the merits of the Obama administration's legal argument that it does not need Congressional authorization to continue the mission because United States forces are not engaged in ``hostilities'' within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution. Under that 1973 law, presidents must end unauthorized deployments 60 days after notifying Congress that they have introduced American forces into actual or imminent hostilities. That deadline for the Libyan mission appeared to pass on May 20, but the administration contended that the deadline did not apply because the United States' role had not risen to the level of ``hostilities,'' at least since it handed control of the mission over to NATO. In support of that argument, the administration has pointed to a series of factors, noting, for example, that most of the strikes have been carried out by allies, while the United States has primarily been playing ``non-kinetic'' supporting roles like refueling and surveillance. It has also said there is little risk of American casualties because there are no ground troops and Libyan forces have little ability to exchange fire with American aircraft. And it noted that the mission is constrained from escalating by a United Nations Security Council resolution. The special anti-radar missiles used to suppress enemy air defenses are usually carried by piloted aircraft, not drones, and the Pentagon has regularly said that American military aircraft have continued to conduct these missions. Still, officials have been reluctant to release the exact numbers of strikes. Under military doctrine, strikes aimed at suppressing air defenses are typically considered to be defensive actions, not offensive. On the other hand, military doctrine also considers the turning on of air-defense radar in a no-fly zone to be a ``hostile act.'' It is not clear whether any of the Libyan defenses were made targets because they had turned on such radar. The administration's legal position prompted internal controversy. Top lawyers at the Justice Department and the Pentagon argued that the United States' military activities did amount to ``hostilities'' under the War Powers Resolution, but President Obama sided with top lawyers at the State Department and the White House who contended that they did not cross that threshold. On Monday, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, acknowledged the internal debate, but defended the judgment made by Mr. Obama, noting that the applicability of the War Powers Resolution to deployments has repeatedly prompted debate over the years. The House of Representatives may vote later this week on a proposal to cut off funding for the Libya mission. The proposal is backed by an odd-bedfellows coalition of antiwar liberals and Tea Party Republicans. They are opposed by an equally unusual alignment of Democrats who support the White House and the intervention in Libya, and more hawkish Republicans. On Monday, a group that includes prominent neoconservative figures--including Liz Cheney, Robert Kagan, William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz--sent Republicans an open letter opposing efforts to cut off funds for the mission.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I see another colleague who is waiting for time. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for such time as I might use, but it won't be much over 10 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Leon Panetta to succeed Robert Gates. But first I feel compelled to respond to the statements by the Senator from West Virginia which characterize the isolationist, withdrawal, lack of knowledge, of history attitude that seems to be on the rise in America. In case the Senator from West Virginia forgot it or never knew it, we withdrew from Afghanistan one time. We withdrew from Afghanistan, and the Taliban came, eventually followed by al-Qaida, followed by attacks on the United States of America. The Senator from West Virginia has expressed his admiration for the men and women who are serving. I hope he would pay attention to the finest military leader who will now be the head of the CIA, General Petraeus, whose knowledge and background may exceed that of the Senator from West Virginia. If we leave Afghanistan in defeat, we will repeat the lessons of history. It is not our expenditures on Afghanistan that are the reasons we are now experiencing budget difficulties. I am pleased the Senator from West Virginia went to Afghanistan once. I would suggest he consult with the people who know best that since 2009, when the surge began, we have had success on the ground in Afghanistan, and we are succeeding. There are enormous challenges ahead of us. But as Secretary Gates has said: Withdrawal to ``Fortress America''--which is basically the message of the Senator from West Virginia--will inevitably lead to attacks from them on the United States of America. I view the remarks of the Senator from West Virginia as at least uninformed about history and strategy and the challenges we face from radical Islamic extremism, including al-Qaida. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote in favor of this nomination today. Director Panetta has had an extraordinary career of public service. He served in the House of Representatives, representing his California district for eight terms. He served in the White House as President Clinton's Chief of Staff and Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Since February 2009 he has been the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, strengthening that agency and forging positive relationships in the interagency process and with the congressional intelligence oversight committees. It is my expectation that Director Panetta will work closely with GEN David Petraeus, the nominee to succeed him at the CIA, and continue the cooperation and commitment that enabled the finding and elimination of Osama bin Laden. I am certainly hopeful that as Secretary of Defense Director Panetta will successfully lead the effort to find and eliminate Ayman al- Zawahiri, who we are told has assumed leadership of al-Qaida, and other al-Qaida leaders. Zawahiri is a sworn enemy of the United States and our way of life and, like bin Laden, must be dealt with in similar terms. Before discussing the challenges Mr. Panetta will encounter, I want to express my thanks and admiration for the service of Secretary Gates as he nears the end of his 4\1/2\-year tenure as Secretary of Defense. I recall that through much of 2007 and 2008 we heard about Secretary Gates' countdown wristwatch that displayed the number of days until a new administration would take over in January 2009, and he and his wife Becky could finally return to their peaceful lakeside home and retirement in Washington State. It is fortunate for the country that President Obama asked, and Secretary Gates agreed to postpone retirement, and that he continued to serve and, presumably, discarded that wristwatch. Secretary Gates testified at his nomination hearing on December 5, 2006, that he agreed to leave Texas A&M University and return to government out of love for his country, and he and his family have provided one of the greatest examples I have seen of that kind of patriotism, answering the call to duty when his talents were most needed. For this, and for innumerable other contributions he has made to the men and women of the Armed Forces, he has truly earned a place in history as one of America's greatest Secretaries of Defense. In December 2006, at a time when so many Senators were clamoring for a cut-and-run strategy in Iraq--just as they are calling for a cut-and- run strategy in Afghanistan--Secretary Gates made the following statement at his nomination hearing: While I am open to alternative ideas about our future strategy and tactics in Iraq, I feel quite strongly about one point. Developments in Iraq over the next year or two will, I believe, shape the entire Middle East and greatly influence global geopolitics for many years to come. Our course over the next year or two will determine whether the American and Iraqi people, and the next President of the United States, will face a slowly, but steadily improving situation in Iraq and in the region or will face the very real risk, and possible reality, of a regional conflagration. We need to work together to develop a strategy that does not leave Iraq in chaos and that protects our long-term interests in, and hopes for the region. Mr. President, you could substitute the word ``Afghanistan'' for exactly what Secretary Gates then said in December 2006. Then we had the surge. There were 59 votes against the surge that would have called for withdrawal in the summer of 2007. Some of us knew what was right and fought for it, and we have succeeded in Iraq, just as we will fight to continue the surge in Afghanistan. We will succeed in Afghanistan, and we will come home with honor, and Afghanistan will not deteriorate to a cockpit of conflict between regional countries that will then cause again the threat of radical Islamic extremism to threaten our very existence--certainly pose threats of attacks on the United States. Secretary Gates was, of course, correct then about Iraq. Today we must add Afghanistan and Libya to his warning about the future consequences of the decisions we make today. In the next few months, our country faces decisions related to our national security and defense that will echo for decades to come--decisions that will determine whether we remain the world's leading global military power, able to meet our many commitments worldwide, or whether we will begin abandoning that role. One of these decisions that will have perhaps the most impact on this outcome is our response to the President's stated goal of cutting $400 billion in national security spending by 2023--on top of the $178 billion in efficiencies and top line reductions that Secretary Gates already has imposed. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen have sounded the alarm against misguided and excessive reductions in defense spending that cut into the muscle of our military capabilities. If we get this wrong, it will result in a dramatic drop in U.S. influence and, as Secretary Gates has said, ``a smaller military able to go fewer places and do fewer things.'' Defense spending is not what is sinking this country into fiscal crisis, and if the President and Congress act on that flawed assumption they will create a situation that is truly unaffordable: the decline of U.S. military power and influence. It is inevitable there will be cuts to defense spending, and some reductions are no doubt necessary to improve the efficiency of the Department of Defense. But I also remember GEN Edward Meyer, then-Chief of Staff of the Army, who warned in 1980 that excessive defense cuts over many years had produced a ``hollow army.'' That is not an experience we can or should repeat in the years to come. We must learn the lessons of history. I sincerely hope Director Panetta, upon assuming office, will not focus exclusively on how but on whether the President's proposal should be implemented and will apply his independent judgment in providing advice to the President on the cuts that can be made without damage to our national security. Last week, the Committee on Armed Services completed its markup for the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012. In a very tough fiscal environment, this markup represents an effort to support our warfighters and bolster the readiness of the U.S. military. Unfortunately, the committee chose to authorize hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary and unrequested porkbarrel projects and rejected my efforts to stop the out-of-control cost overruns of the F-35 program. The Defense authorization bill is an important piece of legislation while our country continues to be engaged in two wars; therefore, I voted to move the bill out of committee. Nevertheless, I will continue my efforts to fight the egregious and wasteful spending during debate on the floor of the Senate, and I will urge Director Panetta, once he is confirmed, to favorably endorse the proposals I will make to properly use precious national defense dollars. In addition, especially in this budget environment, it will be important to continue to eliminate weapons programs that are over cost, behind schedule, and not providing improvements in combat power and capabilities. After 10 years of war, we must continue to eliminate every dollar of wasteful spending that siphons resources away from our most vital need: enabling our troops to succeed in combat. One of the key criteria I am looking for in the next Secretary of Defense is continuity--the continuation of the wise judgment, policies, and decisionmaking that have characterized Secretary Gates' leadership of the Department of Defense. As Director of the CIA, Mr. Panetta has demonstrated that he possesses the experience and ability to ensure that we achieve our objectives in the three conflicts in which U.S. forces are now engaged: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. In Iraq, the key question now is whether some presence of U.S. forces will remain beyond the end of this year, pending an Iraqi request and approval, to support Iraq's continuing needs and our enduring national interests. I believe such a presence is necessary, and I encourage the administration to work closely with the Maliki government to bring about this outcome. In Afghanistan, the main question is the size and scope of the drawdown of forces beginning this July. Here, too, I agree with Secretary Gates that any drawdown should be modest so as to maximize our ability to lock in the hard-won gains of our troops through the next fighting season. I hope Director Panetta, as the Secretary of Defense, will support ``modest'' reductions and take no action that would undermine the hard-won gains in Afghanistan. Finally, we know that there is growing opposition to continuing the U.S. involvement in Libya. There has already been one legislative attempt to bind the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief, and there will likely be others. In short, the accumulated consequences of the administration's delay, confusion, and lack of meaningful consultation have been a wholesale revolt in Congress against the administration's policy. Although I have disagreed, and disagreed strongly at times, with aspects of the administration's policy in Libya, I believe the President did the right thing by intervening to stop a humanitarian disaster in Libya. Amid all of our present arguments about legal and constitutional interpretations, we cannot forget the main point: In the midst of the most groundbreaking geopolitical event in two decades, as peaceful protests for democracy were sweeping the Middle East, with Qadhafi's forces ready to strike Benghazi, and with Arabs and Muslims in Libya and across the region pleading for the U.S. military to stop the bloodshed, the United States and our allies took action and prevented the massacre that Qadhafi had promised to commit in a city of 700,000 people. By doing so, we began creating conditions that are increasing the pressure on Qadhafi to give up power. Director Panetta has been nominated to lead our Armed Forces amid their tenth year of sustained overseas combat. Not surprisingly, this has placed a major strain on our forces and their families. And yet, our military is performing better today than at any time in our history. That is thanks to the thousands of brave young Americans in uniform who are writing a new chapter in the history of our great country. They have shown themselves to be the equals of the greatest generations before them. And the calling that all of us must answer, in our service, is to be equal and forever faithful to the sacrifice of these amazing Americans. I have outlined some of the challenges that lay before Mr. Panetta. I have the highest confidence, however, that he is their equal.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise in support of my amendment. I would ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business to speak on Libya.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, yesterday, the President made an announcement that I believe will strike most of my colleagues and the Americans they represent as a confusing breach of common sense. Two administration lawyers claimed that U.S. military involvement in Libya is not in breach of or calls for the War Powers Resolution. In other words, they believe our military activities in Libya do not require a War Powers Resolution because the United States is not engaged in a state of hostilities in Libya. This puzzling assertion seems to be undercut by the very report that the administration sent to Congress yesterday, which makes it clear that the U.S. Armed Forces have been and presumably will continue to fly limited strike missions to suppress enemy air defenses, to operate armed Predator drones that are attacking Qadhafi's forces in an effort to protect Libyan civilians, and to provide the overwhelming support for NATO operations, from intelligence to aerial refueling. I agree actions such as these don't amount to a full-scale state of war, and I would certainly grant that I am no legal scholar, but I find it hard to swallow that U.S. Armed Forces dropping bombs and killing enemy personnel in a foreign country doesn't amount to a state of hostilities. Unfortunately, this only adds more confusion to our already confusing policy in Libya. Our policy objective, as stated by the President correctly, is to compel Qadhafi to relinquish power. Yet that is not our military objective. The administration claims to have turned the operation in Libya over to NATO, an alliance in which the United States makes up three-quarters of the collective defense spending, as Secretary Gates recently pointed out. The administration sought the blessing of the United Nations, the Arab League, and NATO before using force in Libya but still has not sought a similar authorization or statement approval from the elected representatives of the American people. That is wrong. The result of all this, I hate to say, is plain to see in the actions of our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol in the House. There is massive and growing opposition to continuing the U.S. involvement in Libya. There has already been one piece of legislation passed that binds the President's authority as Commander in Chief. There could likely be a vote soon to cut off funding for the entire operation. In short, the accumulated consequences of all this delay, confusion, and obfuscation has been a wholesale revolt in Congress against the administration's policy. I take no pleasure in pointing this out, because though I have disagreed, and disagreed strongly at times, with aspects of the administration's policy in Libya, I believe the President did the right thing by intervening to stop a looming humanitarian disaster in Libya. Amid all our present arguments about legal and constitutional interpretations, we can't forget the main point: In the midst of the most groundbreaking geopolitical event in two decades, as peaceful protests for democracy were sweeping the Middle East, with Qadhafi's forces ready to strike at the gates of Benghazi, and with Arabs and Muslims in Libya and across the region pleading for the U.S. military to stop the bloodshed, the United States and our allies took action and prevented the massacre that Qadhafi had promised to commit in a city of 700,000 people. By doing so, we began creating conditions that are increasing the pressure on Qadhafi to give up power. Yes, the progress toward this goal has been slower than many had hoped, and the administration is doing less to achieve it than I and others would like. But the bottom line is this: We are succeeding. Qadhafi is weakening. His military leaders and closest associates are abandoning him. NATO is increasing the tempo of its operations and degrading Qadhafi's military capabilities and command and control. The Transitional National Council is gaining international recognition and support and performing more effectively, and though their progress is uneven, opposition forces in Libya are making strategic gains on the ground. I know many were opposed to this mission from the very beginning, and I respect their convictions. But the fact is, whether people like it or not, we are engaged in Libya and we are succeeding. So I would ask my colleagues, is this the time for Congress to begin turning against this policy? Is this the time to ride to the rescue of the man whom President Reagan called the mad dog of the Middle East? Is this the time for Congress to declare to the world, to Qadhafi and his inner circle, to all the Libyans who are sacrificing to force Qadhafi from power, and to our NATO allies who are carrying a far heavier burden in this military operation than we are--is this the time for America to tell all these different audiences that our heart is not in this, that we have neither the will nor the capability to see this mission through, that we will abandon our closest friends and allies on a whim? These are questions every Member of Congress needs to think about long and hard but especially my Republican colleagues. Many of us remember well the way that some of our friends on the other side of the aisle savaged President Bush over the Iraq war, how they sought to do everything in their power to tie his hands and pull America out of that conflict with far too little care for the consequences their actions would have on our friends, our allies, our interests, and our moral standing as the world's leading power. We were right to condemn this behavior then, and we would be wrong to practice it now ourselves simply because a leader of the opposite party occupies the White House. Last week, Qadhafi wrote a personal letter of thanks to the Members of Congress who voted to censure the President and end our Nation's involvement in Libya. Republicans need to ask themselves whether they want to be part of a group that is earning the grateful thanks of a murderous tyrant for trying to limit an American President's ability to force that tyrant to leave power. The goal for all of us in this body, Democrats and Republicans alike, should not be to cut and run from Libya but to ensure we succeed. In the very near future, Senator Kerry and I, along with a strong senior bipartisan group of our colleagues, will introduce an authorization for the limited use of military force in Libya. The administration may assert that we are not engaged in hostilities in Libya, but the Senate should go on record as authorizing these operations. We are in a state of hostilities, and the only result of further delay and confusion over Congress's role in this debate will be to continue ceding the initiative to the strongest critics of our actions in Libya. We plan to introduce the authorization soon. I urge the majority leader to schedule a vote on it quickly. The Senate has been silent for too long on our military involvement in Libya. It is time for the Senate to speak. When that time comes, I believe we will find a strong bipartisan majority that is in favor of maintaining our current course in Libya, that supports our seeing this mission through to success, and that is willing to continue standing in the breach with our allies until the job is done. Madam President, amendment No. 411 would prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from funding the construction of ethanol blender pumps or ethanol storage facilities--the latest request from the ethanol lobby. By prohibiting funding for these pumps and storage facilities we will prevent American taxpayers from spending over $20 billion to convert the 20,000 gasoline pumps currently under construction. During Tuesday's cloture vote on the ethanol tax credit amendment, some members that voted against cloture cited concerns with the procedural tactics used to bring up the vote; the ``unfairness'' of ending the subsidy in midyear, therefore ``pulling the rug'' out from underneath the ethanol industry; and that it was somehow premature to end over 30 years of subsidies unless it was coupled with further funding for ethanol infrastructure construction. I hope my fellow critics of the ethanol tax credit have taken notice of this new tactic over the past few weeks. For ethanol supporters, this debate has been about where and how to prop up the industry in the future--not whether the ethanol industry deserves future taxpayer support. It is time to say enough is enough; this industry has been collecting corporate welfare for far, far too long. For those of us who have been fighting against these handouts over the last two decades, it has been far too long since we have had a full debate on this issue. As a reminder to some of my colleagues of how this debate and support of corn-ethanol handouts has shifted over the years, I would like to read a portion of a floor statement on ethanol subsidies I delivered on March 11, 1998. Mr. President, let me just take a moment and try to explain why we have such generous ethanol subsidies in law today. The rationale for ethanol subsidies has changed over the years, but unfortunately, ethanol has never lived up to the claims of any of its diverse proponents. In the late 1970s, during the energy crisis, ethanol was supposed to help the U.S. lessen its reliance on oil. But ethanol use never took off, even when gasoline prices were highest and lines were longest. Then, in the early 1980s, ethanol subsidies were used to prop up America's struggling corn farmers. Unfortunately, the usual ``trickle down'' effect of agricultural subsidies is clearly evident. Beef and dairy farmers, for example, have to pay a higher price for feed corn, which is then passed on in the form of higher prices for meat and milk. The average consumer ends up paying the cost of ethanol subsidies in the grocery store. By the late 1980s, ethanol became the environmentally correct alternative fuel. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has provided statistics showing that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the amount of energy that gallon of ethanol contains. In addition, the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Department of Energy all acknowledge that the environmental benefits of ethanol use, at least in terms of smog reduction, are yet unproven. These facts are as true today as they were 13 years ago. In fact, we now have a better understanding of the negative effects corn-ethanol has on both the environment and food prices than we did 13 years ago. But it is important to note that while attention is being paid--and rightly so--to eliminating the unneeded and wasteful ethanol tax credit, the corn-ethanol lobby is seeking a new ethanol-stimulus package by attempting a congressional runaround to continue bilking American taxpayers out of their money. Instead of seeking approval from Congress, lobbyists have convinced the USDA to change the rules of the Rural Energy for America Program to pay for new gas station pumps at retail stations at the expense of solar, wind, and energy efficiency projects. In fact, the President has announced his goal to fund the construction of 10,000 ethanol blender pumps and tanks within the next 5 years--a down payment on future ethanol-stimulus spending. Supporters of ethanol corporate welfare are happy to tell you that if they get their way, these 10,000 blender pumps and tanks will be the tip of the iceberg for billions in new federally funded corn-ethanol infrastructure development. To be perfectly clear: Not content with government support to subsidize ethanol, protect it from competition, or require its use, lobbyists now want American taxpayers to pay for the construction of pumps and holding tanks at retail gas stations. Of course, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is happy to comply with the industry's request to fund infrastructure construction. On April 8, 2011, Secretary Vilsack issued a rule that would classify blender pumps as a renewable energy system qualifying it for funding under the Rural Energy Assistance Program. When Congress created the Rural Energy Assistance Program it had no intention of paying gas station owners to upgrade their infrastructure, further subsidizing the ethanol industry. Furthermore, as a bonus to any gas station owners that take advantage of the grant program, once the Federal Government has built the blending pumps and holding tanks, retailers will be eligible to receive the ethanol tax credit, double dipping in the Federal Treasury. How expensive will this ethanol stimulus be if the special interest lobby gets its way? According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture an ethanol blender pump and tank cost an average of $100,000 to $120,000 to install. With over 200,000 fuel pumps currently operating in the U.S. it would cost over $20 billion to convert them all. This is one stimulus project that we cannot afford. And for those concerned about the lack of support for wind and solar projects, a recent Congressional Research Service--CRS--report indicates that tax credits and subsidies for solar, wind and geothermal power will cost $8.62 billion from 2008 to 2012; the ethanol tax credit alone would cost over three times more--$26.5 billion. Allowing the Rural Energy for America Program to continue funding blender pumps and tanks will only continue this trend. For my colleagues that really wanted to end the corporate welfare handouts to the corn-ethanol industry but were concerned over the process issues surrounding the ethanol tax credit vote or concerned about the fairness of ending the tax credit in midyear, you can rest assured that those concerns to not apply to this amendment. It is time Congress takes a step towards ending unneeded and unnecessary payouts to a robust and strong industry. In a time of fiscal constraint, when all are being asked to make a sacrifice, we should expect more from leaders in the private sector than continuing to seek handouts--``stimulus projects''--from the Federal Government. I was disappointed, obviously, in the vote that we took concerning the ethanol subsidies and I know probably how the vote on this amendment will turn out. The message is: Americans, we are not serious about heeding the mandate of last November to stop spending, to stop wasteful projects, to stop the unnecessary projects such as ethanol subsidies. We are going to spend 20 billion of your tax dollars in your local gas station to install a pump. No wonder the American people, according to recent polls, are disillusioned, disappointed, and pessimistic about our future. This vote on this amendment will confirm an ample and adequate reason and an understandable reason for that pessimism. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Illinois for allowing me to do that. I appreciate it and yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I will be brief in discussing both of the amendments. The first amendment, amendment No. 411, is a simple amendment that would prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from funding the construction of ethanol blender pumps or ethanol storage facilities, which is the latest effort on the part of the ethanol lobby to take more and more of U.S. taxpayers' dollars. I would remind my colleagues that taxpayers have already provided billions of dollars to ethanol producers over the last 30 years. Last year alone, the ethanol tax credit cost the taxpayers $6 billion. In the final hours of the last Congress, the ethanol tax credit was extended for an additional year and will likely cost taxpayers an additional $5 billion to $6 billion this year. Seeking to double-dip in the Federal Treasury, advocates for the ethanol industry are seeking taxpayer support for infrastructure for ethanol such as blender pumps and storage facilities. The Department of Agriculture was happy to comply with the industry's request to fund infrastructure construction. On April 8, 2001, the Secretary of Agriculture issued a rule that--get this--would classify blender pumps as a renewable energy system. In other words, pumps are now a renewable energy system, which would qualify it for funding under the Rural Energy Assistance Program. There is no one--no one--who believed the Rural Energy Assistance Program would apply to putting ethanol pumps and storage facilities in gas stations. When Congress created the Rural Energy Assistance Program, it didn't have any intention of paying gas station owners to upgrade their infrastructure and further subsidize the ethanol industry. According to the USDA, an ethanol blender pump and tank could cost an average of $100,000 to $120,000 to install. With over 200,000 fuel pumps currently operating in the United States, it would cost over $20 billion to convert them all--a corporate welfare project of significant proportions. I might point out that an amendment similar to this was overwhelmingly supported in the other body during the consideration of H.R. 1 by a vote of 261 to 158. It is time we stop this. I am a well-known opponent of ethanol subsidies to start with because it has never been of any value. It has distorted the market, and it has been an incredible waste of taxpayers' dollars. But now they want to go further by having us pay as much as $20 billion so they can install, under the Rural Energy Assistance Program, blender pumps and storage facilities. So the ethanol advocates today have issued a release opposing this amendment because it would enforce the foreign oil mandate over our transportation fuels marketplace by blocking a job-creating effort to promote the installation of flex pumps. So now this is all about jobs. We want to create jobs by spending taxpayers' dollars to build pumps. I hope my colleagues will take a look at this and support this amendment. The other amendment, amendment No. 412, basically eliminates Davis- Bacon requirements from this legislation. The issue of Davis-Bacon is well known. All it would do is, in my view, reduce costs by some 60 percent from market rates if we are indeed not imposing Davis-Bacon Act requirements. While I am on the floor, I wish to mention to my colleagues that as we face increasing costs at the gas pump of $4 or more--there are predictions that the cost of gasoline and a barrel of oil will continue to increase--this administration continues to reject nuclear power in every possible way. Yesterday, a House committee released the latest evidence detailing the administration's mishandling of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, providing further examples of this administration's blatantly political decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain project and close the facility. I quote from the committee report: Despite the President's continued assertions that his nuclear waste management policy decisions would be driven by sound science, the administration has repeatedly refused to provide a scientific or technical justification for its shutdown decision, instead simply stating that Yucca is not a workable option. This coincides with an April 2011 GAO study that reported: DOE decided to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository program because, according to the Department of Energy officials, it is not a workable option and there are better solutions that can achieve a broader national consensus. DOE did not cite technical or safety issues. There is a simple reason that neither Department of Energy Secretary Chu nor any other member of the administration has put forth a single scientific justification on the decision not to move forward with Yucca Mountain--because there is none. When the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board rejected the Department of Energy's request to withdraw the license application, it noted: Conceding that the Application is not flawed nor the site unsafe, the Secretary of Energy seeks to withdraw the Application with prejudice as a ``matter of policy'' because the Nevada site ``is not a workable option.'' In fact, according to the House report, the NRC staff review of DOE's Yucca Mountain license application agreed overwhelmingly with the Department of Energy on the scientific and technical issues associated with the site, ultimately concluding that the application complies with applicable Nuclear Regulatory Commission safety regulations necessary for the site to proceed to licensing for construction. The political interference orchestrated by the administration comes with a very real cost. As of 2010, the taxpayers have spent $15 billion to research and develop the Yucca Mountain site. In addition, even while the administration is attempting to terminate the place, the energy industry and therefore the ratepayers are still contributing to the Nuclear Waste Fund that was established to pay for a nuclear waste repository. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Nuclear Waste Fund is holding over $25 billion of ratepayers' money. To date, no one has stated whether the energy industry or the ratepayers will be refunded those fees, and it is likely the taxpayer will end up footing the bill for the lawsuits filed against the Federal Government by those who have been unfairly charged. The need for a permanent waste repository remains clear. In fact, a draft subcommittee report from the President's blue ribbon commission on nuclear waste stated that ``permanent disposal of nuclear waste is needed under all reasonably foreseeable scenarios'' and that ``we do not believe that new technology developments in the next three to four decades will change the underlying need for a storage strategy combining interim sites with progress toward a permanent facility,'' thereby completely refuting statements by the administration that technology and temporary storage sites are a sufficient replacement for permanent disposal. In fact, the administration and the Secretary of Energy himself have publicly stated that our most promising technology to lessen the burden of storage--waste reprocessing--is not even being considered as a viable option for addressing waste-storage needs. Unfortunately, it has been reported that members of the commission have been told that under no circumstances are they allowed to recommend Yucca Mountain as a permanent waste repository--regardless of where the scientific evidence leads them. According to the Government Accountability Office, the termination of Yucca Mountain would set back the opening of a new geologic repository by at least 20 years and cost billions of dollars. Of course, these billions would be in addition to the $15 billion taxpayers have already spent to research and develop the Yucca Mountain site. It is really a sad day when we allow politics or political influence to cause us to allow at least $15 billion of the taxpayers' money to be wasted and to really doom, to a large degree, the future of nuclear power in this country. We need to have energy self-sufficiency. I believe in wind. I believe in tide. I believe in solar. But nuclear power must be a part of any equation if we are going to be truly energy independent. And by closing Yucca Mountain and by wasting already $15 billion of the taxpayers' money, we have made that goal much, much harder to reach. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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