John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendments Nos. 411 and 412.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I still ask unanimous consent to call up both amendments. It is my understanding amendments are allowed, but if there are some amendments that are not allowed, I think we ought to understand that. I understand the strength of the ethanol lobby, but there was an agreement that amendments would be allowed to be called up. If that is not the case, then I would obviously have to resort to other parliamentary measures. So I repeat my unanimous consent request to set aside the pending amendment and call up both amendments, Nos. 411 and 412.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I call for the regular order on amendment No. 436, as modified, and send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. McCAIN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, in a few minutes my colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin, will be introducing a bill which I am a cosponsor of, along with a large bipartisan group of our colleagues. I wish to emphasize at the outset that some may characterize this legislation as anti-Russian. In fact, I believe it is pro-Russian. It is pro the people of Russia. It is pro the people who stand up for human rights and democracy in that country which, unfortunately, seems to be sadly deprived of. This legislation, as my colleague and friend Senator Cardin will describe, requires the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to publish a list of each person whom our government has reason to believe was responsible for the detention, abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky; participated in efforts to conceal the legal liability for these crimes; committed those acts of fraud that Magnitsky uncovered; is responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of human rights committed against individuals seeking to expose illegal activities in Russia or exercise other universally recognized human rights. Second, the individuals on that list would become the target of an array of penalties, among them, ineligibility to receive a visa to travel. They would have their current visas revoked, their assets would be frozen that are under U.S. jurisdiction, and U.S. financial institutions would be required to audit themselves to ensure that none of these individuals are able to bank excess funds and move money in the U.S. financial system. I guess the first question many people will be asking is who was Sergei Magnitsky? Who was this individual who has aroused such outrage and anger throughout the world? He was a tax attorney. He was a tax attorney working for an international company called Hermitage Capital that had invested in Russia. He didn't 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, fairness, and the rule of law in Russia where those principles, frankly, have lost meaning. What Sergei Magnitsky did was he uncovered a collection of Russian Government officials and criminals who were associated with the Russian Government officials who colluded to defraud the Russian state of $230 million. The Russian Government in turn blamed the crime on Heritage 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 to recant. He refused. He was sickened by what his government had done and he refused to surrender principle to brute power. As a result, he was transferred to increasingly more severe and more horrific prison conditions. He was forced to eat unclean food and water. He was denied basic medical care as his health worsened. 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. Sergei Magnitsky's torture and murder--let's call it what it really was--is an extreme example of a problem that is unfortunately all too common and widespread in Russia today: the flagrant violations of the rule of law and basic human rights committed by the Russian Government itself, along with its allies. I note the presence of my colleague and lead sponsor of this important legislation. I hope in his remarks perhaps my friend from Maryland would mention the latest in the last few days which was the affirmation of the incredible sentence on Mr. Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his associate which is, in many ways, tantamount to a death sentence; again, one of these blatant abuses of justice and an example of the corruption that exists at the highest level of government. I wish to say again I appreciate the advocacy of my colleague from Maryland and his steadfast efforts on behalf of human rights in Russia, Belarus, and other countries. It has been a great honor to work with him and for him in bringing this important resolution to the floor of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that at the appropriate time, the Senator from Maryland and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy.

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

Mr. McCAIN. First, I thank my colleague from Maryland for a very eloquent and, I think, very strong statement, to which I can add very little. But isn't it true, I ask my friend, that this Magnitsky case and the Khodorkovsky case, which I would like for us to talk a little bit more about, are not isolated incidents? In other words, this is the face of the problem in Russia today. As the Senator mentioned, in its annual index of perceptions of corruption, Transparency International ranked Russia 154th out of 178 countries--perceived as more corrupt than Pakistan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. The World Bank considers 122 countries to be better places to do business than Russia. One of those countries is Georgia, which the World Bank ranks as the 12th best country to do business. In other words, isn't it true in the Magnitsky case, it is what has been taking place all across Russia, including this incredible story of Khodorkovsky, who was one of the wealthiest men in Russia, one of the wealthiest oligarchs who rebelled against this corruption because he saw the long-term consequences of this kind of corruption and was brought to trial, convicted, and then, when his sentence was completed, they charged him again? Talk about a corrupt system, isn't it true that Vladimir Putin said he should ``sit in jail,'' and we now know that the whole trial was rigged, as revealed by people who were part of the whole trial? In other words, isn't it true, I would ask my friend from Maryland, that what we are talking about is one human tragedy, but it is a tragedy that is unfolding throughout Russia that we do not really have any knowledge of? And if we allow this kind of abuse to go on unresponded to, then, obviously, we are abrogating our responsibilities to the world; isn't that true?

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my colleague, what implications, if any, does the Senator from Maryland believe this should have on the Russian entry into the World Trade Organization?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague from Maryland for an eloquent statement about the situation as regards Russia. I thank him, and I can assure my colleague from Maryland that, as we speak, this will provide--and this legislation which he has introduced, will provide--some encouragement to people who in Russia now, in some cases, have lost almost all hope because of the corruption of the judicial system, as well as other aspects of the Russian nation. We all know that no democracy can function without the rule of law; and if there are ever two examples of the corruption of the rule of law, it is the tragedy of Sergei Magnitsky and, of course, Mr. Khodorkovsky, who still languishes in prison; who, in his words, believes he--by the extension of his prison sentence--may have been given a death sentence. So I thank my colleague from Maryland.

Mr. McCAIN. That was a statement by the Government of Russia?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague from Maryland, and I hope we would get, very rapidly, another 98 cosponsors. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am re-introducing a resolution calling on the President of the United States to posthumously pardon the world's first African-American heavyweight boxing champion, John Arthur ``Jack'' Johnson. As you may remember, Representative Peter King and I introduced a similar bipartisan resolution during the last session of Congress, and it passed both chambers unanimously. I was very pleased that two of the resolution's strongest supporters were the Senate Majority Leader, my friend Senator Reid, and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. However, I am disappointed to say that the President still has not pardoned Mr. Johnson. Today, I call upon my Senate colleagues to once again pass this resolution and send a clear message to our President that this unacceptable historical injustice must be rectified. For those who may not be familiar with the plight of Jack Johnson, he is considered by many to be the most dominant athlete in boxing history. John Arthur Johnson was born March 31, 1878, in Galveston, TX, to parents who were former slaves. At an early age he realized his talent for the sweet science. In order to make a living, Johnson traveled across the country fighting anyone willing to face him. But he was denied repeatedly, on purely racial grounds, a chance to fight for the world heavyweight title. For too long, African-American fighters were not seen as legitimate contenders for the championship. Fortunately, after years of perseverance, Johnson was finally granted an opportunity in 1908 to fight the then-reigning title holder, Tommy Burns. Johnson handily defeated Burns to become the first African- American heavyweight champion. Mr. Johnson's success in the ring, and sometimes indulgent lifestyle outside of it, fostered resentment among many and raised concerns that his continued sporting dominance would somehow disrupt what was then perceived by many as a ``racial order.'' So, a search for a Caucasian boxer who could defeat Johnson began, a campaign dubbed as the search for the ``Great White Hope.'' That hope arrived in the person of a former champion, Jim Jeffries, who returned from retirement to fight Johnson in 1910. But when Johnson defeated Jeffries, race riots broke out as many sought to avenge the loss. Following the defeat of the ``Great White Hope,'' the Federal government launched an investigation into the legality of Johnson's relationships with Caucasian women. The Mann Act, which was enacted in 1910, outlawed the transport of Caucasian women across State lines for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for ``any other immoral purpose.'' Using the ``any other immoral purpose'' clause as a pretext, federal law enforcement officials set out to ``get'' Johnson. On October 18, 1912, he was arrested for transporting his Caucasian girlfriend across State lines in violation of the Act. However, the charges were dropped when the Caucasian, whose mother had originally tipped off Federal officials, refused to cooperate with authorities. She later married Johnson. Yet Federal authorities persisted in their persecution of Johnson, persuading a former Caucasian girlfriend of Johnson's to testify that he had transported her across State lines. Her testimony resulted in Johnson's conviction in 1913. He was sentenced to 1 year and 1 day in Federal prison. During Johnson's appeal, one prosecutor admitted that ``Mr. Johnson was perhaps persecuted as an individual, but that it was his misfortune to be the foremost example of the evil in permitting the intermarriage of whites and blacks.'' After the trial, Johnson fled the country to Canada, and then traveled to various European and South American countries, before losing his heavyweight championship title in Cuba in 1915. He returned to the United States in 1920, surrendered to Federal authorities, and served nearly a year in Federal prison. Despite this obvious and clear injustice, Johnson refused to turn his back on the country that betrayed him. Mr. Johnson died in an automobile accident in 1946. The Jack Johnson case is an ignominious stain on our Nation's history. Rectifying this injustice is long overdue. Again, this resolution calls on the President to pardon Mr. Johnson posthumously. It recognizes the unjustness of what transpired, and sheds light on the achievements of an athlete who was forced into the shadows of bigotry and prejudice. Johnson was a flawed individual who was certainly controversial. But he was also a historic American figure, whose life and accomplishments played an instrumental role in our Nation's progress toward true equality under the law. And he deserved much better than a racially motivated conviction, which denied him of his liberty and served to diminish his athletic, cultural, and historic significance. We are quickly coming up on the 65th anniversary of Jack Johnson's death, and we should take this opportunity to allow future generations to grasp what he accomplished against great odds and appreciate his contributions to society unencumbered by the taint of his criminal conviction. We know that we cannot possibly right the wrong that was done to Jack Johnson, but we can take this small step towards once again acknowledging his mistreatment and removing the cloud that casts a shadow on his legacy. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr, President, today I share the honor with Chairman Lieberman of introducing the First Responders Protection Act of 2011. This bill would provide 10 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz spectrum band to the public safety broadband licensee, make available funding for the construction, operation and maintenance of a nationwide interoperable communications network, and ensure proper governance. In 2004, the 9/11 Commission's Final Report recommended the ``expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum to public safety entities.'' Shortly thereafter, Senator Lieberman and I introduced a bill to provide spectrum to public safety; however the Senate voted down that bill. We reintroduced the bill in 2005, month before Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. But our efforts were blocked. Fortunately, Congress finally wrestled some spectrum away from the television broadcasters in 2009 and provided it to public safety. However, public safety has additional spectrum needs. Almost every other recommendation of the 9/11 Commission has been implemented, but this important recommendation remains unfulfilled. I can only imagine how many lives could have been saved on 9/11 if this spectrum had been available at that time. How many firefighters would be alive today if they could have communicated with their battalion chief at the base of the World Trade Center? In 2007, I introduced legislation to auction the remaining public safety spectrum to a commercial carrier that would then build out a network for public safety. The FCC held such an auction, but no bidder met the reserve price. Ten megahertz of spectrum remains available for public safety's needs. The FCC had announced its intention to auction this spectrum to a commercial provider. Thankfully, the White House announced late last year that it now supports the spectrum being provided to first responders for the construction of a nationwide public safety network, as did the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee. Specifically, this legislation would license the remaining spectrum to the public safety broadband licensee that has been previously approved by the FCC as a qualified licensee and represents more than three dozen national public safety organizations. The legislation provides authority to local jurisdictions to make decisions on the spectrum use, network build-out and equipment. The men and women fighting crime and saving lives know what communications systems and technology are best for them. Not Washington. Lastly, this bill provides funds for grants to localities for the construction, operation and maintenance of an interoperable communications network. These funds will come from the proceeds of a commercial spectrum auction, thereby not adding to our Nation's burgeoning debt or raising taxes on all Americans. As we approach the 10 year commemoration of the horrific events on September 11th and the six year remembrance of the devastating tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, it is a disgrace that police officers, sheriffs and fire fighters still don't have a nation-wide interoperable communications system. Our legislation provides the spectrum and funding to first responders, while being fiscally responsible and ensuring local control and conscientious governance. Providing ten megahertz of spectrum to public safety, as this bill does, is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International, APCO, the National Emergency Managers Association, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management Association. We have slightly more than one hundred days until the ten year anniversary of the horrific events of 9/11. I hope over the next 100 days the Senate Majority Leader will consider bringing this bill to the floor for full consideration and that at that time my colleagues will join me and Senator Lieberman in providing public safety with the interoperable communications network they deserve. It is the least we can do for those who put their lives in danger each and every day to protect all of us.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr, President, today I share the honor with Chairman Lieberman of introducing the First Responders Protection Act of 2011. This bill would provide 10 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz spectrum band to the public safety broadband licensee, make available funding for the construction, operation and maintenance of a nationwide interoperable communications network, and ensure proper governance. In 2004, the 9/11 Commission's Final Report recommended the ``expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum to public safety entities.'' Shortly thereafter, Senator Lieberman and I introduced a bill to provide spectrum to public safety; however the Senate voted down that bill. We reintroduced the bill in 2005, month before Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. But our efforts were blocked. Fortunately, Congress finally wrestled some spectrum away from the television broadcasters in 2009 and provided it to public safety. However, public safety has additional spectrum needs. Almost every other recommendation of the 9/11 Commission has been implemented, but this important recommendation remains unfulfilled. I can only imagine how many lives could have been saved on 9/11 if this spectrum had been available at that time. How many firefighters would be alive today if they could have communicated with their battalion chief at the base of the World Trade Center? In 2007, I introduced legislation to auction the remaining public safety spectrum to a commercial carrier that would then build out a network for public safety. The FCC held such an auction, but no bidder met the reserve price. Ten megahertz of spectrum remains available for public safety's needs. The FCC had announced its intention to auction this spectrum to a commercial provider. Thankfully, the White House announced late last year that it now supports the spectrum being provided to first responders for the construction of a nationwide public safety network, as did the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee. Specifically, this legislation would license the remaining spectrum to the public safety broadband licensee that has been previously approved by the FCC as a qualified licensee and represents more than three dozen national public safety organizations. The legislation provides authority to local jurisdictions to make decisions on the spectrum use, network build-out and equipment. The men and women fighting crime and saving lives know what communications systems and technology are best for them. Not Washington. Lastly, this bill provides funds for grants to localities for the construction, operation and maintenance of an interoperable communications network. These funds will come from the proceeds of a commercial spectrum auction, thereby not adding to our Nation's burgeoning debt or raising taxes on all Americans. As we approach the 10 year commemoration of the horrific events on September 11th and the six year remembrance of the devastating tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, it is a disgrace that police officers, sheriffs and fire fighters still don't have a nation-wide interoperable communications system. Our legislation provides the spectrum and funding to first responders, while being fiscally responsible and ensuring local control and conscientious governance. Providing ten megahertz of spectrum to public safety, as this bill does, is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International, APCO, the National Emergency Managers Association, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management Association. We have slightly more than one hundred days until the ten year anniversary of the horrific events of 9/11. I hope over the next 100 days the Senate Majority Leader will consider bringing this bill to the floor for full consideration and that at that time my colleagues will join me and Senator Lieberman in providing public safety with the interoperable communications network they deserve. It is the least we can do for those who put their lives in danger each and every day to protect all of us.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for the duration of my remarks.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the successful end of the 10-year manhunt to bring Osama bin Laden to justice has appropriately heightened the Nation's appreciation for the diligence, patriotism, and courage of our Armed Forces and our intelligence community. They are a great credit and inspiration to the country that has asked so much of them and, like all Americans, I am in their debt. But their success has also reignited debate over whether the so- called enhanced interrogation techniques of enemy prisoners, including waterboarding, were instrumental in locating bin Laden and whether they are necessary and justifiable means for securing valuable information that might help prevent future terrorist attacks against us and our allies and lead to the capture or killing of those who would perpetrate them. Or are they, and should they be, prohibited by our conscience and laws as torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. I believe some of these practices--especially waterboarding, which is a mock execution, and thus to me indisputably torture--are and should be prohibited in a nation that is exceptional in its defense and advocacy of human rights. I believe they are a violation of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions, all of which forbid cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of all captured combatants, whether they wear the uniform of a country or are essentially stateless. I opposed waterboarding and similar so-called enhanced interrogation techniques before Osama bin Laden was brought to justice, and I oppose them now. I do not believe they are necessary to our success in our war against terrorists, as the advocates of these techniques claim they are. Even more importantly, I believe that if America uses torture, it could someday result in the torture of American combatants. Yes, I know al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations do not share our scruples about the treatment of enemy combatants, and have and will continue to subject American soldiers and anyone they capture to the cruelest mistreatment imaginable. But we must bear in mind the likelihood that someday we will be involved in a more conventional war against a state and not a terrorist movement or insurgency and be careful that we do not set a standard that another country could use to justify their mistreatment of our prisoners. Lastly, it is difficult to overstate the damage that any practice of torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment by Americans does to our national character and historical reputation--to our standing as an exceptional nation among the countries of the world. It is too grave to justify the use of these interrogation techniques. America has made its progress in the world not only by avidly pursuing our geopolitical interests, but by persuading and inspiring other nations to embrace the political values that distinguish us. As I have said many times before, and still maintain, this is not about the terrorists. It is about us. I understand the reasons that govern the decision to approve these interrogation methods, and I know those who approved them and those who employed them in the interrogation of captured terrorists were admirably dedicated to protecting the American people from harm. I know they were determined to keep faith with the victims of terrorism and to prove to our enemies that the United States would pursue justice tirelessly, relentlessly, and successfully, no matter how long it took. I know their responsibilities were grave and urgent, and the strain of their duty was considerable. I admire their dedication and love of country. But I dispute that it was right to use these methods, which I do not believe were in the best interests of justice or our security or the ideals that define us and which we have sacrificed much to defend. I do not believe anyone should be prosecuted for having used these techniques in the past, and I agree that the administration should state definitively that no one will be. As one of the authors of the Military Commissions Act, which I believe prohibits waterboarding and other ``enhanced interrogation techniques,'' we wrote into the language of the law that no one who used them before the enactment of the law should be prosecuted. I do not think it is helpful or wise to revisit that policy. Many advocates of these techniques have asserted their use on terrorists in our custody, particularly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, revealed the trail to bin Laden--a trail which had gone cold in recent years but would now lead to his destruction. The former Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasey, recently claimed that ``the intelligence that led to bin Laden . . . began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information--including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.'' That is false. With so much misinformation being fed into such an essential public debate as this one, I asked the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta, for the facts, and I received the following information: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. We did not first learn from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the real name of bin Laden's courier, or his alias, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti--the man who ultimately enabled us to find bin Laden. The first mention of the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaida, came from a detainee held in another country. The United States did not conduct this detainee's interrogation, nor did we render him to that country for the purpose of interrogation. We did not learn Abu Ahmed's real name or alias as a result of waterboarding or any ``enhanced interrogation technique'' used on a detainee in U.S. custody. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed's real name, his whereabouts, or an accurate description of his role in al- Qaida. In fact, not only did the use of ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden's courier, Abu Ahmed, it actually produced false and misleading information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married, and ceased his role as an al-Qaida facilitator--which was not true, as we now know. All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias. I have sought further information from the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they confirmed for me that, in fact, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee--information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti's real role in al-Qaida and his true relationship to Osama bin Laden--was obtained through standard, noncoercive means, not through any ``enhanced interrogation technique.'' In short, it was not torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees that got us the major leads that ultimately enabled our intelligence community to find Osama bin Laden. I hope former Attorney General Mukasey will correct his misstatement. It is important that he do so because we are again engaged in this important debate, with much at stake for America's security and reputation. Each side should make its own case but do so without making up its own facts. For my part, I would oppose any legislation, if any should be proposed, that is intended to authorize the administration to return to the use of waterboarding or other methods of interrogation that I sincerely believe are torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading, and as such unworthy of and injurious to our country. This debate is ongoing, but I do not believe it will lead to a change in current policy prohibiting these methods. Perhaps this is a debate for the history books. But it is still important because Americans in a future age, as well as their leaders, might face these same questions. We should do our best to provide them a record of our debates and decisions that is notable not just for its passion but for its deliberativeness and for opinions that were formed by facts, and formed with scrupulous care by both sides for the security of the American people and the success of the ideals we cherish. We have a duty to leave future American generations with a history that will offer them not confusion but instruction as they face their crises and challenges and try to lead America safely and honorably through them. Both sides cannot be right, of course, but both sides can be honest, diligent, and sincere. Let me briefly elaborate my reasons for opposing the return to these interrogation policies. Obviously, to defeat our enemies we need intelligence, but intelligence that is reliable. We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. I believe the abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my personal experience, the abuse of prisoners sometimes produces good intelligence but often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear--whether it is true or false--if he believes it will relieve his suffering. Often, information provided to stop the torture is deliberately misleading, and what the advocates of cruel and harsh interrogation techniques can never prove is that we could not have gathered the same intelligence through other more humane means--as a review of the facts provides solid reason to be confident that we can. The costs of assuming otherwise can be hugely detrimental. It has been reported, and the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee confirms for me, that a man named Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi had been captured by the United States and rendered to Egypt where we believe he was tortured and provided false and misleading information about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program. That false information was ultimately included in Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement to the U.N. Security Council and, I assume, helped influence the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. Furthermore, I think it is supremely unfair to the men and women in our intelligence community and military who labored for a decade to locate Osama bin Laden to claim falsely that they only succeeded because we used torture to extract actionable intelligence from a few detainees several years ago. I have not found evidence to suggest that torture--or since so much of our disagreement is definitional, interrogation methods that I believe are torture and which I believe are prohibited by U.S. law and international treaty obligations we are not just a party to but leading advocates of--played an important part in finding and killing bin Laden. Rather, I think his death at the hands of the United States argues quite the contrary, that we can succeed without resort to these methods. It is also the case that the mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops who might someday be held captive. While some enemies, and al-Qaida surely, will never be bound by the principle of reciprocity, we should have concern for those Americans captured by more conventional enemies if not in this war then in the next. Until about 1970, North Vietnam ignored its obligations not to mistreat the Americans they held prisoner, claiming that we were engaged in an unlawful war against them and thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. But when their abuses became widely known and incited unfavorable international attention, they subsequently decreased their mistreatment of our POWs. Some have argued if it is right to kill bin Laden, then it should also be right to torture him had he been captured rather than killed. I disagree. First, the Americans who killed bin Laden were on a military mission against the leader of a terrorist organization with which we are at war. It was not a law enforcement operation or primarily an intelligence operation. They could not be certain that bin Laden, even though he was unarmed, did not possess some means of harming them--a suicide vest, for instance--and they were correctly instructed to take no unnecessary chances in the completion of their mission. Second, bin Laden was a mass murderer. Had we captured him, he would have eventually received the ultimate sanction for his terrible crimes, as captured war criminals in previous wars have. But war criminals captured, tried, and executed in World War II, for instance, were not tortured in advance of their execution, either in retaliation for their crimes or to elicit information that might have helped us locate, apprehend, and convict other war criminals. This was not done because civilized nations have long made a distinction between killing and injuring in the heat of combat, on the one hand, and the deliberate infliction of physical torture on an incapacitated fighter on the other. This distinction is recognized not only in longstanding American values and practices but also in the Geneva Conventions that provide legal protections for our own fighting men and women. All of these arguments have the force of right but, ultimately, even they are beside the most important point. There are many arguments to be made against torture on practical grounds. As I have said, I believe torture produces unreliable information, hinders our fight against global terrorism, and harms our national interest and reputation. But, ultimately, this debate is about far more than technical or practical issues. It is about far more than whether torture works or does not work. It is about far more than utilitarian matters. Ultimately, this is about morality. What is at stake is the very idea of America--the America whose values have inspired the world and instilled in the hearts of its citizens the certainty that no matter how hard we fight, no matter how dangerous our adversary, in the course of vanquishing our enemies, we do not compromise our deepest values. We are America, and we hold our ourselves to a higher standard. That is what is at stake. Although Osama bin Laden is dead, America remains at war, and to prevail in this war we need more than victories on the battlefield. This is a war of ideas as well, a struggle to advance freedom in the face of terror in places where oppressive rule has bred the malevolence that feeds the ideology of violent extremism. Prisoner abuses exact a terrible toll on us in this war of ideas. They inevitably become public, and when they do they threaten our moral standard and expose us to false but widely disseminated charges that democracies are no more inherently idealistic and moral than other regimes. I understand that Islamic extremists who resort to terror would destroy us utterly if they could obtain the weapons to do so. But to defeat them utterly, we must also prevail in our defense of the universal values that ultimately have the greatest power to eradicate this evil ideology. Although it took a decade to find him, there is one consolation for bin Laden's 10-year evasion of justice. He lived long enough to see what some are calling the Arab spring, the complete repudiation of bin Laden's world view and the cruel disregard for human life and human dignity he used to advance it. In Egypt and Tunisia, Arabs successfully reclaimed their rights from autocracies to determine their own destiny without resort to violence or the deliberate destruction of innocent life. Now Arabs are trying valiantly, by means as just as their cause, to do the same in Syria and elsewhere. As the United States discusses and debates what role we should play to influence the course of the Arab spring, can we not all agree that the first and most obvious thing we can do is stand as an example of a just government and equal justice under the law, as a champion of the idea that an individual's human rights are superior to the will of the majority or the wishes of the government? Individuals might forfeit their life and liberty as punishment for breaking laws, but even then, as recognized in our Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, they are still entitled to respect for their basic human dignity, even if they have denied that respect to others. I do not mourn the loss of any terrorist's life, nor do I care if in the course of serving their malevolent cause they suffer great harm. They have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next. What I do mourn is what we lose when by official policy or official neglect we allow, confuse, or encourage those who fight this war for us to forget that best sense of ourselves, that which is our greatest strength; that when we fight to defend our security, we also fight for an idea, not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion, but for an idea that all men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. It is indispensable to our success in this war that those we ask to fight it know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to our country, they are never expected to forget they are Americans and the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should be governed and conduct their relations with others--even our enemies. Those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history and the many terrible sacrifices that have been made in our defense to make clear to them that they need not risk our country's honor to prevail, that they are always--through the violence, chaos, and heartache of war, through deprivation, cruelty and loss they are always Americans, and different, stronger, and better than those who would destroy us. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, may I thank my very honorable friend and adversary for his kind remarks. I will always remember them. I thank him.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, during my 24 years in the U.S. Senate I have not once voted against cloture for a nominee to the district court, and I will not do so today. As a member of the ``Gang of 14'' in 2005, I agreed that ``Nominees should be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances.'' The nomination of Mr. McConnell does not rise to a level of ``extraordinary circumstances.'' However, I am deeply troubled by Mr. McConnell's less than candid responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee, his liberal judicial philosophy, including his public antipathy toward private enterprise, and his strong political activism. For these reasons, I will not support his nomination. Shaping the judiciary through the appointment power is one of the most important and solemn responsibilities a President has and certainly one that has a profound and lasting impact. The President is entitled to nominate those whom he sees fit to serve on the Federal bench, and unless the nominee rises to ``extraordinary circumstances,'' I have provided my constitutional duty of ``consent'' for most nominees. While I would not have chosen Mr. McConnell as a nominee to the Federal bench if I were in a position to nominate, I respect the President's ability to do so and therefore will vote for the cloture motion on Mr. McConnell's nomination, but will strongly oppose his nomination to the Federal bench.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of S. Res. 159, honoring the members of the military and intelligence community who carried out the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. I am as happy to rise today as at any time in the past 10 years--and it has been for the last 10 years that I have eagerly awaited the moment when my colleagues and I could take to this floor and celebrate the news we got this Sunday: that we got Osama bin Laden. Justice has been done. The world has become a better place now that bin Laden is no longer in it. This is a time for national unity and celebration. It is a time to finally close a painful chapter in the history of our Nation, even as our larger fight continues. And, most of all, it is a time to give thanks and recognition to a distinguished group of our fellow citizens who will forever occupy an honored place in our history. I want to echo my colleagues in offering my humble thanks to the brave men who carried out the daring operation, as well as to the men and women in uniform who enabled their success. I have been involved in national security my entire life, and I am hard pressed to come up with another military operation that demonstrated such sophistication, such professionalism, such precise and lethal effectiveness to accomplish such a momentous and consequential objective. I am truly in awe of what these young men have accomplished, and I thank God that our Nation continues to produce heroic warriors such as them who are willing to give everything, to sacrifice everything, to devote their lives not to the quest for wealth or fame but to the service of a just and noble cause that is greater than their self-interests. We do not yet know their names, but we honor their achievements and we celebrate their heroism. They have made history and earned their place in it. I want to offer the same praise for our intelligence professionals. It is a truism that intelligence fails in public and succeeds in private. So it is a great day indeed when we can celebrate such a public success of our intelligence professionals. There are men and women across our intelligence community who have devoted the past 10 years, and many more before that, to finding bin Laden. Despite setbacks and sacrifice, despite the loss of leads and the death of friends, regardless of whether the trail was hot or cold, they woke up every day and carried on the fight. And now we honor the fruits of their perseverance and sacrifice, even as they themselves remain hard at work--exploiting the new information we have recovered, analyzing the new data, and setting up the next operation. I also want to offer my deepest congratulations and appreciation to the President and his national security team. I credit them with making the elimination of Osama bin Laden their top priority--and for accomplishing it so impressively. Regardless of the myriad groups and parties and factions into which we Americans divide ourselves on a daily basis, the killing of Osama bin Laden is a national triumph and all Americans should feel proud and appreciative of the leadership shown by President Obama and his team on this matter. I specifically want to credit the President with ordering an airborne assault by ground forces rather than aerial bombardment. It would have been a lot easier to simply turn bin Laden's compound into a smoldering crater, but it would have denied us the certainty we now have that bin Laden is dead. It took real courage to assume the many risks associated with putting boots on the ground, and I strongly commend the President for it. I would be remiss if I did not also thank President Bush and the many officials who labored with him for 8 years to do what has now been done. I know it is one of President Bush's regrets that he could not eliminate bin Laden on his watch, but he and his team should take solace in the knowledge that they laid the foundation for Sunday's operation, and they deserve credit for that. Finally, I want to say a word to the many American families for whom this celebration is bittersweet because it recalls memories of the mothers and fathers, spouses and siblings, sons and daughters, who were stolen from them, and from us all--not just in the September 11 attacks but in the many acts of mass murder for which Osama bin Laden was guilty. No act of man can fill the aching emptiness of a loved one lost. For that there is only the grace of God. But it is my sincerest hope that the elimination of Osama bin Laden--this act of justice done--will help to ease the pain and bring closure to what has surely been a decade of torment, as we were daily reminded that the world's most wanted terrorist was still free. I also want to credit the families of the victims of September 11, 2001. Had it not been for their relentless efforts and advocacy, Congress would not have established the 9/11 Commission and adopted many of its important reforms of our national security establishment-- reforms that no doubt were instrumental in facilitating the joint and collaborative operation to find and kill Osama bin Laden. I could not imagine a greater contribution that the 9/11 families could have made. Of course, the death of Osama bin Laden does not portend the elimination of al-Qaida or the end of terrorist plots and attacks against our country. We must remain vigilant in our pursuit of every enemy who would do harm to us and our friends and allies. And we shall do so. But there is no denying that the death of Osama bin Laden will have a significant impact in this long war. It will enable us to focus more of our time and attention and resources on others who would do us harm. Perhaps more importantly, it will enable our country to look more fully forward--to focus more completely on supporting the peaceful democratic awakenings that are sweeping the Middle East and North Africa, which are the greatest repudiation of al-Qaida that we ever could have imagined or hoped for. If there is any consolation in the fact that Osama bin Laden lived as long as he did, it is that he got to witness Arabs and Muslims by the tens of millions rising up to demand justice and dignity, not through suicide bombings and mass murder, but through peaceful change, political freedom, and economic opportunity--the very ideas that bin Laden's perverse and murderous ideology seeks to destroy. That could be the truest death knell of al-Qaida, and I for one am very happy that Osama bin Laden got to hear it--just before a team of American heroes ended his wretched life. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. That is in the eye of the beholder. I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, after much drama and anticipation late last Friday night, literally minutes before the government was scheduled to shut down, as we all know, a deal was struck to pass a weeklong continuing resolution and keep the government operating. That was the seventh continuing resolution we have passed since the start of the fiscal year last October. Now we are appearing to consider the eighth and final continuing resolution to fund the government for the remaining 5 months of the fiscal year. Amazing. Eight continuing resolutions were necessary to fund the government for 1 year because my friends on the other side of the aisle neglected to bring a single one of the annual appropriations bills to the floor for consideration last year. As my colleagues know, in addition to continued funding for all government operations, the measure we will consider tomorrow includes appropriations for the Department of Defense for the remainder of the fiscal year. Unfortunately, on top of the typical run-of-the-mill Washington budget gimmickry, this agreement also contains a gross misallocation of imperative defense resources. The Defense Department funding portion of this bill proposes $513 billion for the routine operations of the Department of Defense and approximately $17 billion in military construction, for a total of $530 billion. This amount is $19 billion less than the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Defense Department and its related military construction projects and $10 billion less than the $540 billion the Secretary of Defense had testified was the minimum amount the Department needed to execute its national defense mission. In addition, this bill also funds an additional $157.8 billion for overseas contingency operations, or war funding, to support our troops in combat, consistent with the President's budget request. I might add that the amounts Secretary Gates described as essential in January did not foresee that the United States would expend more than $650 million enforcing the no-fly zone in Libya, an amount that will most likely increase over the remaining months of the fiscal year. While this may seem like a defense funding level that we can live with in a tough fiscal climate bill, the bill is not what it appears to be on the surface. As the Secretary of Defense pointed out last week, funding to support the warfighter is degraded in this bill because billions in the war- funding accounts--my staff has estimated close to $8 billion--have been allocated by the Appropriations Committee for new spending not requested by the administration or transferred to pay items that were originally requested in the base budget for nonwar-related expenses. For instance, the bill shifts $3.2 billion in nonwar funding to the war-funding account to artificially lower defense spending for day-to-day operations but by doing so reduces funds for the warfighter. Here is an example. The appropriators have added $495 million for nine additional F-18s and funds them as part of the war-funding budget even though we have not lost any F-18s in the current conflicts. Additionally, the appropriators added $4.8 billion in unrequested funding to the war-funding part of the Defense bill for programs and activities that the President and Secretary Gates did not seek. For example, $192 million was added for additional missile defense interceptors. There was no administration request for these funds. And missile defense expenses are in no way related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So this bill uses gimmicks and shell games to artificially lower the defense base budget rather than playing by the rules and actually demonstrating our commitment to fiscal responsibility. By doing so, it takes away billions of dollars that were originally requested for ongoing combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to support our troops where it is most needed. Within the $19 billion lower top line of the base defense budget, this bill continues business as usual with cuts exceeding $5 billion to the amounts the President and Secretary Gates requested for critical defense programs in order to pay for over $3.7 billion in unjustified and unexplained increases to other accounts. In addition to these shifts away from the Department of Defense priorities, this bill also adds over $1.4 billion for projects that were not requested by the Department and are not considered core activities of the Department of Defense. Let me give you examples of those misallocated resources. It includes $473 million in non-Department of Defense medical research not requested in the President's budget; $227 million in other medical research related to Department of Defense fields but not requested by the Pentagon; $550 million for local roads and schools not requested by the administration. It adds an additional $3.7 billion in program increases not justified by an unfunded request by the service chiefs or by the administration; adds unrequested funds for the Red Cross, $24 million; Special Olympics, $1.2 million; youth mentoring programs, $20 million. These are good programs, but they have no place in the Department of Defense. They should be in other areas. It cuts about $1 billion in military construction requested in the President's budget, including $258 million for projects in Bahrain, the headquarters of the Navy's Fifth Fleet. It adds a reporting provision designed to be the first step in forcing the National Guard to buy firefighting aircraft rather than lease commercially available aircraft. It authorizes a multiyear procurement of Navy MH-60 helicopters. I want to be clear here. I know that cancer research is a popular cause on a bipartisan basis and that it has value in the larger scheme of things. I am not against funding for medical research to fight the scourge of cancer and other diseases. I support funding for these programs that are requested by the administration for the Department of Health and Human Services. But this sort of general medical research funding has no place in a defense bill. Placing it there, which the appropriators have done year after year, undercuts the fiscal responsibility and prioritization process we expect our Federal agencies to undertake when allocating scarce resources. So the Department of Defense is not only getting a significantly lower amount in its 2011 budget--$19 billion below what it asked for to support its routine operations and carry out its day-to-day national security mission and $10 billion below what Secretary Gates said in January was essential for the Department's ability to continue to function, but it is also being directed to spend about $8 billion in funding for items that do not directly support the men and women in the military. Let me point out one more disturbing aspect of the DOD portion of this bill. I understand from an exchange between my staff and the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee that the committee is appropriating only ``top-line dollar amounts'' in this bill and not providing the customary tables, which is the description for each account, which outline the specifics of what is being funded. Instead, I have learned that the committee plans to communicate directly with the Office of the Secretary of Defense on funding levels in specific items. I do not have a problem with the Appropriations Committee providing a top-line dollar amount to the Pentagon and allowing the Secretary of Defense to fund our national security priorities as he sees fit. I am deeply concerned about the lack of transparency associated with this plan. I hope it is not a way to get around the earmark moratorium currently in place in both Houses. If a Member of Congress is dictating, through the Appropriations Committee, the use of scarce defense funds, it is an earmark, even if it was done over the phone. I urge the Department of Defense to not view such communications as law or a mandate. As I noted earlier, in addition to the misallocation of defense resources, this so-called deal uses typical Washington smoke-and-mirror tactics to achieve savings. According to expert analysis and numerous press reports, the agreement reached by negotiators last week used some of the same budget tricks and gimmickry that have helped us to accumulate our current deficit of $1.4 trillion and a debt of over $14.3 trillion. Yesterday, in an article by Andrew Taylor of the Associated Press, it was reported that details of last week's hard-won agreement to avoid a government shutdown and cut Federal spending by $38 billion were released Tuesday morning. They reveal that the budget cuts, while historic, were significantly eased by pruning money left over from previous years using accounting sleight of hand and going after programs President Obama had targeted anyway. The article also noted that details of the agreement ``reveal a lot of one-time savings and cuts that officially score as cuts to pay for spending elsewhere, but often have little or no impact on the deficit.'' Additionally, an editorial appeared in today's Wall Street Journal titled ``Spending Cut Hokum: GOP leaders hyped their budget savings.'' In part, the editorial states: After separating out the accounting gimmicks and one-year savings, the actual cuts look to be closer to $20 billion than to the $38 billion that both sides advertized. But the continuing resolution also saves money on paper through phantom cuts. The whopper is declaring $6.2 billion in savings by not spending money left from the 2010 Census. Congress also cuts $4.9 billion from the Justice Department's Crime Victims Fund, but much of that money was tucked away in a reserve fund that would not have been spent this year in any event. The budgeteers claim $630 million in cuts from what are called ``orphan earmarks,'' or construction that never started, and $2 billion more for transportation projects, some of which were likely to be canceled. The Associated Press reports that $350 million in savings comes from a 2009 program to pay diary farmers to compensate for low milk prices. Milk prices are higher this year, so some of that money also would never have been spent. An estimated $17 billion comes from one-time savings in mandatory programs. The cuts are real, but the funding gets restored by law the next year, which means Republicans will have to refight the same battles. States lose some $3.5 billion in bonus money to enroll more kids in the Children's Health Insurance Program, but many states failed to qualify for that extra funding. These cuts don't reduce the spending baseline, so there are no compound savings over time. None of this is enough to defeat the budget at this point, but it is infuriating given the GOP leadership's flogging of that $38 billion top-line figure. Is that the best we can offer the American people right now? In these tough economic times, with record debt and deficits and 8.8 percent unemployment, we give them smoke and mirrors, budget gimmickry, and accounting sleight of hand. Our government is bloated and precious taxpayer dollars are squandered in nearly every agency. You can't pick up a newspaper or go online without seeing reports of waste and duplication throughout Federal bureaucracies. I am pleased some real cuts have been made, but we need to do much more. This deal does little to address the very serious fiscal issues we face as a nation. I hope as we address the next crisis, which will be, obviously, as we reach the debt limit, that we will have more serious plans. I also believe it is vitally important, before we raise the debt limit, that we can put this Nation on a path to a balanced budget. We cannot afford to continue to borrow 40 cents out of every dollar we spend in Washington. We cannot afford, as the commercial that many of us have seen on television, to have the Chinese own America's money, and the United States be in such debt that China has an increasing and unhealthy influence on the United States. I intend to vote for this agreement. I believe we could have done a lot better, but it is a step in the right direction. It is the first time we have made serious efforts to reduce spending in quite a number of years around here. I hope it will serve as something that the American people can support and spur us on to greater efforts in the coming weeks and months. I notice the presence of the majority leader, and I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add 4 additional minutes to my 10 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am aware that most of my colleagues are taking the floor today to speak about the potential shutdown of the government, and very appropriately so. I am strongly opposed to a government shutdown, as we all are. I especially want to note its adverse effects on our men and women in uniform. Of course, I have joined so many of my colleagues in cosponsoring the Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011. The last thing our men and women and their families need to worry about is how to make ends meet while they are taking up arms to defend the Nation's interests. I rise to talk about the deteriorating situation in Libya which could have more profound effects than the crisis we are in. It is a very serious, very deteriorating situation and one which is fraught with severe implications for America's national security interests. I remain a strong supporter of the President's decision to take military action in Libya. It averted what was an imminent slaughter in Benghazi and has given us a chance to achieve the goal of U.S. policy as stated correctly by the President: to force Qadhafi to leave power. I am also grateful we have capable friends, our Arab partners, and NATO allies, who are making critical contributions. But that is not a substitute for U.S. leadership. Right now that is the main missing ingredient in the coalition's efforts in Libya--the willingness of the administration to take decisive actions, together with our partners, so that we can accomplish our goal as quickly as possible rather than look to our allies to do it all themselves, which I fear the evidence is mounting they cannot do. The administration has chosen to stop flying strike missions against Qadhafi's forces, even though they continue to threaten Libyan civilians and even though our NATO allies cannot match our unique capabilities in this regard. The administration correctly declared that forcing Qadhafi from power is a goal of U.S. policy, but our military mission is not working toward that goal by actively seeking to degrade Qadhafi's forces, thereby increasing the pressure on him to leave power. At a time when Qadhafi's forces are adapting to NATO's tactics and capabilities and concealing themselves in populated civilian areas, the administration has grounded our most effective aircraft, the A-10 and the AC-130, which are the only planes--the only planes--that are capable of conducting the kinds of precise air-to-ground operations now required to protect civilians under the current circumstances. Not surprisingly, Qadhafi's forces are now regaining the momentum on the ground. We cannot succeed with half-measures. Right now, our actions are not adding up to a strategy that appears capable of achieving our goals. To the contrary, we seem to be failing to prevent the situation on the ground in Libya from sliding into a stalemate. Just yesterday, GEN Carter Hamm, the commander of U.S. Africa Command, who led Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, told the Armed Services Committee that a stalemate in Libya, where Qadhafi remains in power to pose an even greater threat to the world and to the Libyan people, is not in America's interest or in anyone's interest. But in the same hearing yesterday, General Hamm also conceded that the situation on the ground in Libya is ``more likely'' of becoming a stalemate now then when this intervention began. I am afraid I agree with the general. I would like to highlight some of the news my colleagues may have missed. Yesterday, there was an airstrike that, unfortunately--the Washington Post: ``NATO's credibility takes a hit in Libya.'' Forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi went back on the offensive . . . as questions continued to mount about the credibility and effectiveness of NATO's no-fly zone and campaign of airstrikes. A senior U.S. general described the situation in Libya as a stalemate, while Turkey said it was talking to both sides working on a ``road map'' for a cease-fire. In the meantime, Gaddafi is seeking what military advantage he can get and probing for gaps in NATO's resolve. . . . The day also ignited new confusion and outrage among rebels in Ajdabiya after warplanes strafed rebel forces and killed at least five people, including two doctors. Rebels first accused NATO of targeting them. . . . By Thursday night, it was still unclear who attacked. . . . Abdul Fattah Younis, the rebel's commander, told reporters that if NATO had attacked their tanks, it was a mistake, and if Gaddafi's airplanes had been allowed to strike them, it was an ``even bigger mistake.'' Quoting the New York Times: As for the current air war, NATO is especially sensitive to the criticism that came most scathingly from the leader of the Libyan opposition forces, Gen. Abdul Fattah Younes. He said in Benghazi late Tuesday that ``NATO blesses us every now and then with a bombardment here and there, and is letting the people of Misurata die every day.'' So we relieved a humanitarian--let's get this straight, my friends-- we relieved a humanitarian disaster in Benghazi, and now, because of either ineptitude or lack of resolve or lack of capability or all of the above, we are now watching a massacre--certainly human suffering of enormous proportions in Misurata. There is another article from the Guardian: ``NATO lacking strike aircraft for Libya campaign.'' There is a New York Times editorial today. Interestingly, the New York Times says: There is a much better option: the American A-10 and AC-130 aircraft used earlier in the Libya fighting and still on standby status. President Obama should authorize these planes to fly again under NATO command. Unlike the highflying supersonic French and British jets now carrying the main burden of the air war, these American planes can fly slow enough and low enough to let them see and target Colonel Qaddafi's weapons without unduly endangering nearby populations. Facts are stubborn things. The fact is that now the situation is deteriorating. The suffering goes on, and America and our allies appear to be showing that we are incapable or unwilling to address a third- rate military power, ruled by a man who has the blood of 190 Americans on his hands, who has been involved in terrorist activities throughout the world, who went outside of Benghazi and said: We will go house to house and kill every one of you. And the situation is deteriorating into stalemate. So what do we need to do? First, we need to get U.S. Armed Forces, especially our A-10s and AC- 130s, back in the business of flying strike missions against Qadhafi's forces--not just as part of our effort to protect civilians but to work toward the goal of our actual policy, which is to impose enough pressure on the regime to compel Qadhafi and his family to leave power. Second, the United States should work with our friends and allies to help the opposition government in Benghazi, the Transitional National Council, to gain access to some of the tens of billions of dollars worth of funds that have been frozen from the Qadhafi regime. Third, we need to help the opposition to Qadhafi communicate more effectively, while shutting down Qadhafi's ability to broadcast his propaganda. Qadhafi has cut off land lines, mobile networks, and the Internet. While top opposition leaders have satellite phones, we have both humanitarian and strategic interests in restoring the ability of people in liberated parts of Libya to communicate with each other and the rest of the world. We should take steps to get Qadhafi's satellite, television, and radio broadcasts off the air. U.S. diplomacy is urgently needed to get those countries that have satellite providers broadcasting Qadhafi's propaganda to drop those communications immediately. Fourth, the United States should follow France, Qatar, and Italy in recognizing the opposition government, the Transitional National Council, as the sole legitimate government of Libya. I hear again and again: We don't know who these people are. Well, I will tell you who they are. They are people who rose up against an oppressive and brutal dictator and wanted to assert their rights for freedom and democracy. That is who they are. Any allegation that they are dominated by al-Qaida is patently false. We did not know who was going to come after Hitler, but we wanted him gone. So this continuous stream that somehow this is al-Qaida--it is not al-Qaida; it is people who want freedom and democracy. They rose up peacefully, as the Tunisians did and the Egyptians did and as others across the Middle East and north Africa are now doing for greater political freedom, economic opportunity, and justice. That is why this regional awakening, which some are calling the Arab spring, rather than helping al-Qaida, is, in fact, the greatest repudiation of al-Qaida the world has ever seen. Fifth, we need to facilitate the provision of weapons to the Libyan opposition, as well as command and control technology, training, battlefield intelligence, and other capabilities that can strengthen their ability to increase the pressure on Qadhafi to leave power. I want to reiterate that I do not support nor do I believe is necessary American ground troops under any circumstances. We should be able to, with a combination of the robust implementation of these five measures, drive Qadhafi from power and give the Libyan people their God-given rights. I want to say again that I see on cable time after time that we do not know who these people are and they may be al-Qaida. I will tell you who they are. They are people who do not want to live under oppressive, repressive brutal regimes. And the more of a stalemate, the more likely al-Qaida forces will infiltrate and gain power. The quicker Qadhafi leaves power, the more likely it is we will see a dramatic transition. We cannot say--we cannot say--we intervened in Libya to prevent a slaughter in Benghazi only to see one in Misurata or some other city. If we stay our present course, that is what will likely happen. We need decisive actions, not half-measures. We need to be leading. America must lead. NATO is America. We need to be leading in a strong and sustained way, not sitting on the side lines or playing a supporting role. We have the right goal in Libya. The President was right to intervene in the first place, but now we need to take the necessary steps to finish the job. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the articles I referred to be printed in the Record.