National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Levin, and I share his gratitude in thanking our subcommittee chairmen and ranking members who contributed so much to writing this bill. They held numerous hearings on many important issues, and I thank them all for their hard work. And they were ably assisted by our extremely competent committee staff. Bringing this bill to the floor each year is a tremendous undertaking, and it would not be possible without the hard work of our outstanding professional staff who ensure that the process goes smoothly.

I also extend my special thanks to Chairman Levin, with whom I have worked for many years now. I commend him on his leadership, grace, and integrity in shepherding this bill. It is not easy managing the competing interests, views, and opinions of 26 Senators, but Chairman Levin does an outstanding job at ensuring we all feel heard and understood, even if we do not always agree. I continue to admire his steadfast dedication to the committee's long tradition of bipartisan cooperation.

Chairman Levin, you are a friend and great colleague, and I appreciate your support in both regards.

Consistent with the longstanding, bipartisan practice of the Armed Services Committee, this bill reflects our committee's continued strong support for the brave men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces. It is, for the most part, an excellent bill, and I believe the committee has made informed decisions regarding the authorization of over $680 billion in base and overseas contingency operations funding for fiscal year 2010. To a great extent, it reflects the priorities laid out by the Secretary of Defense and the administration. It also reflects his decision to end troubled programs and focus our limited resources on today's threats and the lessons we have learned after more than 8 years of war.

While the provisions in the bill demonstrate our commitment to provide our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines the very best available equipment, training, and support in order to provide them with the best possible tools to undertake their missions, I believe we can and should improve the bill in certain respects, and I will offer amendments during our floor debate to do so.

The bill takes care of our men and women in uniform and their families by providing military members with a 3.4-percent pay raise. It expands care for wounded warriors, supports families, and improves military health care. It fully funds the growth of the Army and Marine Corps. Indeed, it authorizes further growth of the Army should that be necessary to sustain our combat operations and further reduce the strain on our forces.

The bill retains a balanced capability to deter aggression by increasing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, investing in tactical aircraft and ships, and accelerating the purchase of mine-resistant all-terrain vehicles for our troops in Afghanistan.

This bill acknowledges that the United States has a vital national security interest in ensuring that Afghanistan does not once again become a safe haven for terrorists. It supports a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy that is adequately resourced and funded by Congress based on identified needs to date and calls on the President to provide our U.S. military commanders with the military forces they require in order to succeed.

In Iraq, the committee ensures that the Congress will support the President's plan to redeploy combat forces while providing our commanders the flexibility to hold hard-fought security gains and ensure the safety of our forces.

One of the toughest issues this committee has taken a leading role in--both in past years and in this bill--is detainee policy. Since 2005, this committee has developed legislation on detainee matters--sometimes in cooperation with the White House and sometimes over its strong objections--because it is critical to our national security and the preservation of our democratic principles.

This bill makes changes to the Military Commissions Act of 2006. We have all--Senator Levin, Senator Graham, and others--worked closely together to address some of these difficult issues.

We have not resolved all of the challenges military commissions and other aspects of detainee policy present, but I believe we have made substantial progress that will strengthen the military commissions system during appellate review, provide a careful balance between protection of national security and American values, and allow the trials to move forward with greater efficiency toward a just and fair result.

The committee also had a healthy debate on the future of missile defense and our strategic deterrence capabilities. I welcome and share President Obama's aspirations, hope for a nuclear-free world. However, I believe we must also be prudent and practical in our reductions and remain vigilant about the global proliferation of advance missile and nuclear technology. While recently much of our national defense posture supports combating terrorists, we cannot grow complacent to the danger that rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran pose to us--whether it is missile launches within range of Hawaii or transferring weapons to Hezbollah or Hamas.

We must strengthen our commitment to enforcing the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the existing inspections regime. We must lead an international effort to interdict and prevent the world's most dangerous weapons from getting into the hands of the world's worst actors. I know there are varying views on the future of missile defense and our long-term strategic force posture, and I look forward to those debates.

The bipartisan nature of our committee allows for candid discussion, lively debate, and, at times, disagreement. In that spirit, there are some items in the bill I do not support and were not in the President's budget request, such as continuation of the F-22 aircraft production line, funding for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine, and earmarks totaling approximately $6.4 billion. I was disappointed that, in spite of a veto threat from the White House, our committee chose to add $1.75 billion for seven F-22 aircraft and at least $439 million for an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. Neither the President nor the Pentagon asked for F-22s or the alternate engine in the budget request, nor were they part of the Service's Unfunded Priority List. Secretary Gates has consistently opposed the need for additional F-22 aircraft and has indicated on a number of occasions that additional F-22 aircraft are not required to meet potential threats posed by near-term adversaries. I strongly support Secretary Gates' decision to end the F-22 production line at 187 aircraft and his commitment--and the President's commitment--to building a fifth-generation tactical fighter capability by focusing on the timely delivery of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to the Air Force, Navy, and Marines.

I look forward to lively debates on these and other important issues over the next few days.

I want to make very clear to my colleagues, the reason Senator Levin and I support the administration's and Secretary Gates' proposal to terminate at 187 the F-22 fighter aircraft is not because we believe we are going to leave the Nation undefended. We need the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Our armed services are counting on them. We want to increase funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, an aircraft and weapon system that in the view of many experts--including my view--would be far more capable of meeting the emerging threats of the future. So I want my colleagues to understand this debate is not just about cutting a weapon system or bringing to an end, frankly, the line of a fighter aircraft; it is bringing to the end the line of one fighter aircraft and moving forward with another generation--for all three services, a very capable weapons system, one that meets the threats of the 21st century.

So I think it is important that we look at the argument that will come forward about jobs created or jobs lost. There will be jobs created, but the rationale for defense weapons systems should never be the creation of jobs. It should only be about the best way to defend this Nation in a very dangerous world.

So it is my understanding it is the wish of the chairman--and I join him--that the first amendment for debate will be the administration proposal to finish the F-22 aircraft production line, saving some $1.75 billion. So I look forward to that debate. I look forward to my colleagues coming to the floor who would oppose that amendment. I hope my colleagues understand we would like to get this done this week, if possible.

One more comment about the F-22 and the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter: The President of the United States, I am told, and the Secretary of Defense have made it very clear a veto is very likely if the Congress does not act to end production of the F-22 line. I would strongly recommend the President of the United States go ahead and veto this bill if the F-22 is included. At some point, with unemployment at 9.5 percent, with people not being able to stay in their jobs, with health care being less available and less affordable in America, we cannot afford to spend $1.7 billion additional taxpayer dollars for a system that can be replaced by a more capable weapons system and one that can defend our Nation with greater efficiency and less cost.

So I believe, frankly, there is more at stake than just whether we adopt the Levin-McCain amendment to terminate production of the F-22 as originally scheduled. I think this is a much larger issue, and I hope my colleagues understand the importance of it. I hope, if the Levin-McCain amendment is defeated--I hope it is not because I believe Senator Levin and I can make a convincing argument on behalf of the administration and the Secretary of Defense--but if it is, that there be no doubt that the President of the United States would veto this bill.

I say that with great reluctance. I say it with almost a sense of deep regret because there are so many things in this bill that are important to the defense of our Nation, whether it be the care and pay raises and hospitalization and care of our wounded warriors, along with many other issues. But at some point this Congress and this Nation have to exercise the fiscal discipline the economic crisis we are in today demands.

I again wish to thank Senator Levin for the long and close relationship and work we have done together. Sometimes we have had very spirited but very informative discussions, and I know those will continue as we address this very important legislation before the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record material in support of my remarks.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source