John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I could.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the littoral combat ships, LCS, provision in the continuing resolution, CR. That provision--which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, and the Congressional Research Service, CRS, could cost taxpayers as much as $2.9 billion more than the current acquisition strategy--simply does not belong in the CR. But once again we are looking at a cloture vote on a piece of ``must-pass'' legislation where the majority leader has filled the amendment tree and no amendments will be allowed. The LCS program has a long, documented history of cost overruns and production slippages and yet we now find ourselves inserting an authorization provision at the 11th hour to yet again change the acquisition strategy of a program that has been plagued by instability since its inception. Let's look at its track record over the past 5 years: 1st LCS funded in 2005--LCS 1 Commissioned in Nov 2008 at cost of $637 million; 2nd LCS funded in 2006--LCS 2 Commissioned in Jan 2010 at cost of $704 million; 3rd LCS funded in 2006--Canceled by Navy in April 2007, because of cost, and schedule growth; 4th LCS funded in 2006--Canceled by Navy in Nov 2007, because of cost and schedule growth; 5th LCS funded in 2007--Canceled by Navy in Mar 2007, because of cost and schedule growth; 6th LCS funded in 2007--Canceled by Navy in Mar 2007, because projected costs too high; 7th LCS funded in 2008--Canceled by Navy in Sep 2008, because projected costs too high; 8th LCS funded in 2009--Christened in Dec 2010 is about 80 percent complete; ``New LCS 3''; 9th LCS funded in 2009--Under construction is about 40 percent complete; ``New LCS 4.'' When the Navy first made its proposal to Congress just over 6 weeks ago, it failed to provide Congress with basic information we need to decide whether it should approve the Navy's request--including the actual bid prices, which would tell us how realistic and sustainable they are, and specific information about how capable each of the yards are of delivering the ships as needed, on time and on budget. Why don't we have that information? Because it's sensitive to the on-going competition. Last week, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the General Accountability Office, GAO, the Congressional Research Service, CRS, and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, raised important questions that Congress should have answers to before it considers approving the proposal. Those questions included not only ``how much more (or less) would it cost for the Navy to buy LCS ships under its proposal'' but also ``how much would the cost be to operate and maintain two versions of LCS, under the proposal''. They also asked ``how confident can we be that the Navy will be able to stay within budgeted limits and deliver promised capability on schedule--given that all of the deficiencies affecting LCS' lead ships have not been identified and fully resolved'' and ``has the combined capability of the LCS seaframes with their mission modules been sufficiently demonstrated so that increasing the Navy's commitment to seaframes at this time would be appropriate?'' Those questions, and others, that GAO, CRS and CBO raised last week, are salient and should be answered definitively before we approve of the Navy's proposal. Every one of those witnesses conceded that more time would help Congress get those answers. And, considering this provision in connection with a Continuing Resolution, brought up at the 11th hour; during a lame-duck session; outside of the congressional budget-review period; and without specific information or the opportunity for full and open debate by all interested Members, does not give us that time. Buying into this process would be an abrogation of our constitutional oversight responsibility. From 2005 to date, we have sunk $8 billion into the LCS program. And, what do we have to show for it? Only two boats commissioned and one boat christened--none of which have been shown to be operationally effective or reliable--and a trail of blown cost-caps and schedule slips. I suggest that, having made key decisions on the program hastily and ill-informed, we in Congress are partly to blame for that record. But, with the cost of the program from 2010 to 2015 projected to be about $11 billion, we can start to fix that--by not including this ill- advised provision in the CR. I ask unanimous consent that my December 10, 2010, letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, asking them not to include the LCS provision in any funding measure, a letter from the Project on Government Oversight to Senator Levin and me, and the exchange of letters between me and the Chief of Naval Operations, CNO, be printed in today's Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. The only thing I would add to the comments of Senator Levin is that there are policy provisions regarding training and equipment and readiness that cannot be just done by money. These are important policy decisions, important authorizations, including a pay raise--not for us. I urge my colleagues not to object to this Defense Authorization Act. I argue it is critical to sustaining this Nation's security.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be 5 minutes additional time on each side, an additional 5 minutes be allowed for Senator Graham on this side.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair and my colleagues and the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, over the last 3 years, I have spent a lot of time traveling around the State of Arizona and meeting with my constituents. Many of these trips took me to the southern part of my State where I sat down with ranchers, farmers, small business owners, local officials, and law enforcement officers in the border region and discussed the issues that were important to them and their neighbors. Everywhere I went people told me of their fear and concern over the lack of security along Arizona's border with Mexico. Due to the drug war in Mexico, the situation along the southern border has proven to be a very serious and real threat to the people living in the region. The violence that continues to plague our southern neighbor by well-armed, well-financed, and very determined drug cartels poses a threat to our national security. Despite the increased efforts of President Calderon to stamp out these bloodthirsty and vicious drug cartels, violence has increased dramatically, claiming over 31,000 lives in Mexico since 2006. The murderers carrying out these crimes are as violent and dangerous as any in the world. Two weeks ago, the Mexican military arrested a 14-year-old U.S. citizen who has been working as a hit man for the Cartel of the South Pacific. This child assassin came to the attention of the public after YouTube videos surfaced of him decapitating kidnapping victims. When questioned by Mexican authorities, he is quoted as saying, ``When we don't find the rivals, we kill innocent people, maybe a construction worker or a taxi driver.'' Truly disturbing behavior. This week there was another tragic murder on the U.S. side of the border that took the life of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family and his fellow Border Patrol agents. Agent Terry was killed outside of Rio Rico, AZ, during a shootout with a Mexican ``rip-crew'' that was attempting to rip off a rival drug gang. These incidents are becoming all too common and are a byproduct of the lack of resources and personnel along our border. Incidents like these are why the residents of southern Arizona tell me that they feel that they live in a lawless, forgotten region of the country where they live in constant fear in their own homes. They are begging for our help. It is time--in fact, the time is long overdue-- for the Federal Government to fulfill its responsibility to secure our international borders and ensure the safety and well-being of the families and citizens living within those borders. All of that being said, I still believe that the overwhelming majority of men and women trying to enter our country illegally are looking for nothing more than the opportunity to improve their lives and the lives of their families. Fixing our immigration system, with reforms like the DREAM Act and the implementation of a workable and labor-market-driven guest worker program would benefit our Nation's economy and our society. Such reform would also provide immigrants desperate to come to the United States to look for work a safe alternative to illegal human smugglers or ``coyotes'' that have cost so many people their lives and dignity. According to the U.S. Border Patrol, 253 people died attempting to cross the Arizona border between September 2009 and October 2010. With respect to the DREAM Act, I have great sympathy for the students who would benefit from passage of this legislation. I have met personally with many of the students advocating for the bill, and many of their stories are heart-wrenching. Through no fault of their own, they are now caught in legal limbo that leaves them unable to obtain employment in the United States and unequipped to return to the country of their birth, often a place foreign and completely unknown to them. I truly sympathize with the plight of these men and women. But I also feel for the men and women of Arizona who live along an unsecure border and have been promised for decades that the Federal Government will do its job and stop the illegal migration and drug trafficking that run through their towns, neighborhoods, and backyards. I pity the farmers in my State who are unable to harvest their crops because they cannot navigate the burdens of the H-2A agriculture guest worker program. Most of all, however, I sympathize with the families who live in constant fear in their homes and neighborhoods, especially those who have been victimized by criminal elements crossing the border illegally. Consequently, I cannot in good faith put the priorities of these students, as tragic as their situation is, ahead of my constituents and the American people are who are demanding that the Federal Government fulfill its constitutional duty to secure our borders. Once we fulfill this commitment, we can then address the other issues surrounding and plaguing our broken immigration system. On a practical note, I also believe that any casual, impartial observer will recognize that our inability to secure the border has made immigration reform politically unattainable as the American public insists we stop the flow of illegal entries before considering any changes to our immigration policies. In 1986, we passed what was truly an amnesty and we failed to secure our borders either before or after that bill's passage. Consequently, we now have an estimated 12 to 20 million people living in our country illegally, and the American people have said ``enough is enough.'' They are telling us to ``secure our borders first.'' We have already made steps in the right direction. In fact, we have shown our ability to work in a bipartisan fashion to secure the border during this Congress. Most recently, in August, the Senate unanimously passed legislation to deploy $600 million in personnel and new assets to the southwest border. We must continue this important work together. While it is true that there are more assets and resources at the border now than ever before, we need a complete and comprehensive plan that incorporates the ideas of the State and local law enforcement, elected officials, and the border Governors. In the coming months, I will begin a deliberative and comprehensive process of discovering what is truly needed to secure our borders and give the Governors of our Southern States the peace of mind and assurance they need to certify that their borders are secure. These elected officials are on the front line and know best what assets, personnel, and technology are needed. Once the border State Governors certify their State border has been secured and the Federal Government can demonstrate such to the American people--only then should we and can we begin working on comprehensive immigration reform. I look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan matter to address all of these issues that are important to the American people and the people of Arizona.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. McCAIN. Well, Mr. President, I would ask, is it true the parliamentary situation as it exists right now is that we will be voting on cloture on both what is known as don't ask, don't tell and the DREAM Act?

Mr. McCAIN. Meanwhile, on the Executive Calendar, we have the START treaty?

Mr. McCAIN. And there are no amendments that are in order on either the DREAM Act or don't ask, don't tell, no amendments are in order?

Mr. McCAIN. So here we are, about 6 weeks after an election that repudiated the agenda of the other side, and we are jamming, or trying to jam, major issues through the Senate of the United States because they know they cannot get it done beginning next January 5. They cannot do it next January 5. The American people have spoken, and they are acting in direct repudiation of the message of the American people. That is why they are jamming this through. My friends, there is a lot of talk about compromise. There is a lot of talk about working together. You think what this ``bizarro'' world that the majority leader has been carrying us in, of cloture votes on this, votes on various issues that are on the political agenda of the other side--to somehow think that beginning next January 5 we will all love one another and kumbaya? I do not think so. I do not think so. Unfortunately, the majority is using the lameduck session to push an agenda, when the fact is lameduck sessions are supposed to be to finish up the work of Congress so the new Congress can act on the issues of the day. The American people have spoken in what the President of the United States described as a ``shellacking.'' Everything we are doing is completely ignoring that message. Maybe it will require another election. So, for example, I filed two amendments I believe are relevant to this bill, important to this major change. Those will not be in order. I have always and consistently stated that I would listen to and fully consider the advice of our military and our military leadership. On December 3, the Committee on Armed Services heard from the Chiefs of our four military services--the Chiefs of our four military services. General Amos said: Based on what I know about the very tough fight in Afghanistan, the almost singular focus of our combat forces as they train up and deploy into theater, the necessary tightly woven culture of those combat forces that we are asking so much of at this time, and, finally, the direct feedback from the survey, my recommendation is that we should not implement repeal at this time. Then he talks about: Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines' lives. Cost marines' lives. [M]arines came back-- After serving in combat-- and they said, ``Look, anything that's going to break or potentially break that focus and cause any kind of distraction may have an effect on cohesion.'' I don't want to permit that opportunity to happen. And I'll tell you why. If you go up to Bethesda . . . Marines are up there with no legs, none. We've got Marines at Walter Reed with no limbs. General Casey said: I believe that the implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the near term will, one, add another level of stress to an already stretched force; two, be more difficult in our combat arms units; and, three, be more difficult for the Army than the report suggests. General Schwartz basically said the same thing. I have heard from thousands--thousands--of Active-Duty and retired military personnel. I have heard from them, and they are saying: Senator McCain, it isn't broke, and don't fix it. So all of this talk about how it is a civil rights issue and equality, the fact is, the military has the highest recruiting and highest retention than at any other time in its history. So I understand the other side's argument as to their social, political agenda. But to somehow allege that it has harmed our military is not justified by the facts. I hope everybody recognizes this debate is not about the broader social issues that are being discussed in our society, but what is in the best interest of our national security and our military during the time of war. Now, I am aware this vote will probably pass today in a lameduck session, and there will be high-fives all over the liberal bastions of America. We will see the talk shows tomorrow--a bunch of people talking about how great it is. Most of them never have served in the military or maybe even not even known someone in the military. And, you know, we will repeal it; all over America there will be gold stars put up in windows in the rural towns and communities all over America that do not partake in the elite schools that bar military recruiters from campus, that do not partake in the salons of Georgetown and the other liberal bastions around the country. But there will be additional sacrifice. I hear that from master sergeants. I hear that from junior officers. I hear that from leaders. So I am confident that with this repeal our military--the best in the world--will salute and do the best they can to carry out the orders of the Commander in Chief. That is the nature--that is the nature--of our military, and I could not be more proud of them in the performance that they have given us in Iraq and Afghanistan, and before that other conflicts. They will do what is asked of them. But do not think it will not be at great cost. I will never forget being, just a few weeks ago, at Kandahar. An Army sergeant major, with five tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a forward operating base, said: Senator McCain, we live together. We sleep together. We eat together. Unit cohesion is what makes us succeed. So I hope when we pass this legislation we will understand we are doing great damage, and we could possibly and probably--as the Commandant of the Marine Corps said; and I have been told by literally thousands of members of the military--harm the battle effectiveness which is so vital to the survival of our young men and women in the military. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Is that agreeable to the manager?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. What is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. McCAIN. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the time would be either on the don't ask, don't tell or the START treaty.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, 4 minutes is not adequate for my amendment. There are a couple of speakers, including the cosponsor, Senator Barrasso.

Mr. McCAIN. How much time do I have?

Mr. McCAIN. I will reserve at least the last 3 minutes for my colleague, Senator Kyl.

Mr. McCAIN. As we all know, we will vote very quickly on the amendment to the New START treaty. I have offered this amendment along with the Senator from Wyoming, and this amendment is an important and seminal one. It is focused on a key flaw in the treaty--the inclusion in the preamble of the following clause. I wish to read it in full. We have read it before, and I don't understand how the letter the Senator from Massachusetts just read would not then force us to negate this part of the treaty, which says: Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and the current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties. This language carries a lot of historical significance and strategic weight because it recognizes an interrelationship between nuclear weapons and missile defense. Some believe this type of linkage was appropriate during the Cold War, when the United States and the Soviet Union were existential enemies, with the means to annihilate each other. But it is not appropriate for today, when the United States and the Russian Federation, for all our differences, are not devoted to one another's destruction and when one of the greatest threats to our national security comes from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, which are developing nuclear weapons and increasingly better means to deliver them. In today's world, with so many new and constantly evolving threats, the United States can't be limited in the development, deployment, and improvements of missile defense systems that we deem to be in our national security interest. I am concerned, as are many of my colleagues, that the Russian Government believes this clause from the preamble confers a legal obligation on the United States which constrains our missile defenses. Ever since President Reagan proposed a Strategic Defense Initiative, the Russians have sought to limit our strategic defensive arms. They have sought to limit our missile defense programs through legal obligations, and failing that, with political commitments or agreements that could be cited to confer future obligations. Words matter. Words matter. To open ourselves to this type of political threat by accepting an outdated interrelationship between nuclear weapons and missile defense is wrong. Furthermore, by saying that ``current'' missile defenses do not undermine the treaty's viability and effectiveness, this clause from the treaty's preamble establishes that future missile defense deployments could undermine the treaty, thereby establishing a political threat the Russian Federation could use to try to constrain U.S. missile defenses. In short, we have handed the Russian Government the political tool they have sought for so long to bind our future decisions and actions on strategic defensive arms. Imagine a world, a few years from now, when--God forbid--an Iran or North Korea or some other rogue state has developed and deployed longer range ballistic missiles and a deployable nuclear capability much earlier than we assessed. Imagine we are faced with a situation where unforeseen events compel us, for the sake of our national security and that of our allies, to improve our current systems or to develop and deploy new systems in order to counter a new and far greater threat than we expected. Then consider what the Russian Federation said in a unilateral statement at the signing of the treaty. This is the statement of the Russian Federation--something that if the Senator from Massachusetts is correct, we should be able to clarify by asking for a statement from the Russian Federation repudiating what they said at the time of the signing statement. This is what they said: The treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms signed at Prague on April 8, 2010, may be effective and viable only in conditions where there is no qualitative or quantitative buildup in the missile defense system capabilities of the United States of America. That is clear language. That is clear, unequivocal language, and I will repeat it: . . . where there is no qualitative or quantitative buildup in the missile defense system capabilities of the United States of America. Consequently, the extraordinary events referred to in Article XIV of the Treaty also include a buildup in the missile defense system capabilities of the United States of America such that it would give rise to a threat to the strategic nuclear force potential of the Russian Federation. That is a very clear statement. It is unequivocal as to what the Russian Federation is saying. One of the things Senator Graham and I and others have said is: Hey, why don't we just drop a letter to the Russian Ambassador or to Vlad or whomever and ask them, clarify this, will you? Are you standing by your statement you made at the signing? Is that the Russian Federation's official policy that has not been revoked? This is the Russian interpretation of what our two governments have agreed to in the preamble. They seem to believe this clause limits U.S. missile defense systems. They seem to believe the language in this clause about ``the effectiveness and viability of the Treaty'' means that any buildup or improvement in U.S. missile defense systems would undermine the treaty. They seem to believe there is a clear and legally binding connection between what was agreed to in this clause of the preamble and article XIV of the treaty, which establishes the rights of the parties to withdraw from the treaty and the conditions under which they may do so. In short, the Russian Government seems to believe this nonbinding political agreement is the pretext for a legal obligation under the treaty itself, and if the United States builds up its missile defense, Russia will withdraw from the treaty. Let's listen to what the Russian leaders have said. I mean, this is not made up. This is what they have said. The Russian Foreign Minister, on March 28, 2010--this year--said this: The treaty and all obligations it contains are valid only within the context of the levels which are now present in the sphere of strategic defensive weapons. What could be more clear? Here he says again, in April of 2010--April this year. Linkage to missile defense is clearly spelled out in the accord and is legally binding. I mean, if there is any clarification for that statement from the preamble, he just gave it--at least what the Russian version is. Here is President Dmitry Medvedev on November 30--18 days ago. Either we reach an agreement on missile defense and create a full-fledged cooperation mechanism, or if we can't come to a constructive agreement, we will see another escalation of the arms race. We will have to make a decision to deploy new strike systems. Finally, here is Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on ``Larry King Live.'' Larry, we will miss you. I have quoted him so many times. This was on ``Larry King Live'' on December 1, 2010. If the counter missiles will be deployed in the year 2012 along our borders, or [2015], they will work against our nuclear potential there, our nuclear arsenal. And certainly that worries us. And we are obliged to take some actions in response. This is a troubling situation. And it must be corrected by this body. Let me quote again from the recent op-ed by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the Wall Street Journal: The Senate must make absolutely clear that in ratifying this treaty, the United States is not reestablishing the Cold War link between offensive forces and missile defenses. New START's preamble is worrying in this regard, as it recognizes the interrelationship of the two. Now that is a statement by our former Secretary of State, who, by the way, wants this treaty ratified, but she also wants us to fix this. This amendment fixes it--this amendment. I appreciate the letter from the President of the United States. I am very grateful for it. But the fact is, letters are letters and Presidents don't last forever. But binding treaties do, until they are either broken or they are revoked. To have right in the beginning, at the preamble, a clear and unequivocal statement that any improvement in our defensive weapon missile systems will then be grounds for withdrawal from the treaty is not anything we should let stand. The simplest way--

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair. Let me finish. The Senator from Wyoming and I are proposing the amendment which will simply strike the language from the preamble itself. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Today is a very sad day. The Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps says: When your life hangs on the line, you don't want anything distracting. Mistakes and inattention and distractions cost marines' lives. I don't want to permit that opportunity to happen and I will tell you why. You go up to Bethesda Naval Hospital, marines are up there with no legs, none. We have marines in Walter Reed with no limbs.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I would say, Madam President, that not only on the don't ask, don't tell has the tree been filled but also on the DREAM Act. I have obviously been heavily involved in immigration issues for some years, including things that have happened including the murder of a Border Patrol agent just in the last couple days in Arizona, obviously by someone from the drug cartels. So, yes, there will be, again, a vote with no amendments allowed, again, on either one of those pieces of legislation.

Mr. McCAIN. What about the filing of petitions for cloture on what is known as don't ask, don't tell and what is known as the DREAM Act?

Mr. McCAIN. That is part of the legislative session and we are in executive session.

Mr. McCAIN. But time is still pending on the matters in legislative session; is that correct?