John McCain on Homeland Security Republican nominee for President; Senior Senator (AZ)

Sub-sections under Homeland Security:
• Defense Spending
• Torture
• Vietnam
• Voting Record
• Other issues under Homeland Security

Long-time foe of LCS, littoral combat ship

Sen. John McCain and Sen. Jeff Flake have proposed an amendment slashing $475 million from the defense appropriations, which would cut its current two-ship buy down to a single LCS. McCain is a long-time foe of the program, once calling the LCS a classic example of "defense acquisition gone awry." The legislation would bring the bill in line with the Navy's request for one LCS, which Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer assured lawmakers this year would be plenty. It could also placate the White House after it strongly opposed a larger buy last week.

3% increase in military is not enough; we need more

Vietnam POW: Ashamed of signing false confession

"I couldn't rationalize away my confession. I was ashamed. I felt faithless, and couldn't control my despair."

It is impossible for me to truly understand how John endured what he did, much less how he could feel shame for breaking under the cruelty of his captors. But such is the remarkable character of this man and the men and women of our armed forces.

Obama opposed surge even after it appeared effective

2008: guaranteed college for vets creates retention problems

McCain didn't believe any such thing; he worried that the bill would create retention problems in the armed forces. Having his commitment to veterans questioned set off McCain's first flare of genuine ire toward Obama. "I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did," McCain snapped.

FactCheck: Pushed for immediate withdrawal from Somalia

What McCain isn’t saying is that he led an attempt to force the Clinton administration to withdraw more quickly. After the First Battle of Mogadishu (immortalized in the book and film “Black Hawk Down”), Clinton proposed a six-month plan for withdrawing combat troops. McCain introduced an amendment to cut off funding for combat in Somalia and force an immediate withdrawal. The amendment was tabled and the Senate backed Clinton’s plan. In his 2002 memoir, “Worth the Fighting For,” McCain called his amendment “hasty” and wrote that he “regretted” what he came to see as “a retreat in the face of aggression from an inferior foe.”

FactCheck: Voted against Lebanon deployment, but post-hoc

Credit Bush, troops, & luck, for not another 9/11

A: I think we ought to give credit to the administration, to the president, and to the dedicated people who have worked from the level of our intelligence agencies around the world, to the local policemen, firemen, first responders, who have done such a magnificent job. I also think there’s always an element of luck involved. But I also think that we should unleash more of America’s technology.

Q: When you say technology, more technology, what exactly do you mean?

A: There’s satellites. There’s the kinds of technologies that are being developed in our national labs. And, by the way, part of that technology, is human intelligence. Our technological capabilities are pretty good. They’re gonna get better and we’ve got to work on getting them better. But we still haven’t got the kind of human intelligence that can tell us the intentions of the enemy.

I hate war; it’s terrible beyond imagination

Clinton & Bush missed opportunities to get bin Laden

A: Well, look, President Clinton [had] opportunities to get Osama bin Laden. President Bush had opportunities to get Osama bin Laden. I know how to do it and I’ll do it. And I understand and I have the knowledge and the background and the experience to make the right judgments. Sen. Obama does not. He was wrong on Iraq. He underestimated Iran. He has no knowledge or experience or judgment. That’s -- he doesn’t know how -- how the world works nor how the military works. I do and I can lead and I’ll secure the peace.

Disagrees with Bush often; but credits no attacks since 9/11

A: I think history will judge that. I do think it’s a fact that America has not been attacked again since 9/11. I think the president deserves credit for that. I think history will judge the president. As is well-known, I was adamantly opposed to the spending spree that we went on, and predicted that we would be in difficulties if we continued the largest increase in government since the Great Society. And I urged vetoes. I believe strongly that we needed to address the issue of climate change in a comprehensive fashion. I obviously don’t want to torture any prisoners. There is a long list of areas that we were in disagreement on.

Applying habeas to Guantanamo let 30 terrorists attack US

GovWatch: Only 13 Gitmo recidivists & none attacked US

Is that true? The latest Pentagon “fact sheet”, dated June 13, states that 37 former Guantanamo detainees are “confirmed or suspected” of having returned to “terrorist activities” since their release. It puts the so-called recidivism rate at “between 5% and 7%.”

The Pentagon names 13 former GITMO prisoners whose participation in various types of terrorist activity has been “confirmed,” in most cases because they have been killed or captured. There is no evidence that any of the 13 killed Americans.

McCain is wrong to claim that 30 former Guantanamo detainees “have tried to attack America again.” Defense Secretary Gates was a lot less specific than McCain, saying “We don’t have a lot of specific cases. We’re talking about 1, 2, 3 dozen that we have some information on.”

Improve human intelligence to get Osama bin Laden

A: Most importantly, I’ll improve our human intelligence.

Q: How?

A: Well, we’re going to recruit, and send people in who can blend into the culture, into the tribal communities. I didn’t say it was going to be easy. But I will get him. And why is it so important? One, he killed 3,000 Americans. But two, he is recruiting & instructing radical Islamic extremists who want to destroy everything we stand for. This guy is a continuing threat.

Surveillance of overseas communications is ok

A: There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress, no matter what the situation is.

Q: So is that a no?

A: I don’t think the president has the right to disobey any law.

Ok to hold even US citizens as enemy combatants

A: The Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that, under the Congressional authorization of the use of force, the US can hold even American citizens under the law of war if they are enemy combatants. But the Court also said that US citizens must have due process to challenge their detention. And I think that is very important when it comes to American citizens.

Consult lawyers on war decisions; no half-cocked war basis

MCCAIN: Because I don’t think that’s the time to call in the lawyers, when we’re in a national security crisis. Those are the last people I’d call in. I’d call in my wisdom, my knowledge, my background, my experience, and my ability to lead this nation.

ROMNEY: I want to make one thing very, very clear, and that is if there were ever a question of a security threat to this country, I would act immediately to protect the interests of America and our citizens. No question about that. But every president has of course met with White House counsel and they have written opinions about the involvement of Congress. The decision to take our men and women to war is the most grave decision and I would do that on a very deliberate and careful basis, not a half-cocked basis.

Ran the largest squadron in the US Navy

A: I’ve run the largest squadron in the US Navy, and I didn’t run it, I led it. It was tens of millions of dollars of assets, training brave young Americans to go fight and defend the country. I’ll defend my leadership of 1,000-men and -women organization with the management of anything that anybody else has done.

After 9/11, ask Americans to join military or AmeriCorps

A: I would have asked Americans, when Americans were ready to serve a cause greater than themselves, I would have told them, first of all, consider the military; also the Peace Corps, also AmeriCorps, also neighborhood watches, also volunteer organizations that we would form up all over America. That way we would all serve this nation.

Let loose smart, tough spies to catch Bin Laden

A: I would establish an organization not unlike the OSS in World War II. People who are smart, people who are tough; people who are used to operating independently, and the smartest and most talented people I know. And I would let them loose, and I’d say find this guy and do whatever is necessary to get him.

His Military Commissions Act ended up denying habeas corpus

His two most significant reform laws--the line-item veto and McCain-Feingold--were both judged to be largely unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. (Indeed, most of McCain’s ideas for reform involve increasing federal power at the expense of civil liberties.) A third law, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, will be adjudicated by the high court in the fall of 2007, and is a classic example of a legislative cure be

1973: Spokesperson for Operation Homecoming

[Based on that article,] McCain became a trusted Congressional advisor on POW issues, a status most of the other 590 men likely did not enjoy. Although McCain had help getting his foot in the door, he made the most of his opportunities. The remarkable, gracious, and nearly bitterness-free bit of writing [in US News & World Report] foreshadowed the literary success he would have with Faith of My Fathers.

1977:Appointed as Navy liaison to Congress

Unsurprisingly, he proved to be one of the most popular Navy liaisons in history. John McCain, as a Navy captain, “knew on a personal basis more senators and was more warmly received than virtually any lobbyist I have ever known in this town; they loved to see him,” McCain’s liaison office colleague said.

1970s: Communists negotiate when faced with force

I admire TR's zest for combat & pugnacious vitality

There is literally no Roosevelt military action that McCain finds deserving of retrospective criticism. Asserting "the right to intervene militarily in Latin American countries where disorder might attract the unwelcome attention of other great powers"? Check. Fomenting insurrection in Panama to dig and control a canal? Check.

Teddy Roosevelt was the architect of America's empire. McCain wrote in Faith of My Fathers, before relating this rough-and-ready quote from Jack McCain: "People may not love you for being strong when you have to be, but they respect you for it and learn to behave themselves when you are."

Leading proponent for drastically expanding National Service

Boost standing army from 750,000 to 900,000

Half of world's defense spending should be US as global cop

To support this expansive foreign policy, McCain wants to narrow the gap between civilians and military, create more opportunities for civilians to join the struggle, and increase opportunities for immigrants to gain citizenship through war.

I’ve spent my life leading on national security issues

A: I’ve spent my life in national security issues. I’ve taken unpopular stance because I knew what was right. Back in 2003, amid criticism from my fellow Republicans, I spoke strongly against the Rumsfeld strategy, which I knew was doomed to failure and cause so much needless sacrifice. I advocated very strongly the new strategy that some Democrats have called the McCain strategy--which it is not. And I believe that this strategy is winning. I know the conflict. I know war. I have seen war. I know how the military works. I know how the government works. I understand national security. I was once the commanding officer of the largest squadron in the US Navy. I didn’t manage it. I led it.

Radical Islamic extremism is a hydra-headed challenge

I support the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war

A: I agree with the doctrine. And I’d also like to give President Bush a little credit. Right after 9/11, every expert in the world said there would be another attack on the US. There hasn’t been. Now, maybe that’s all by accident. But if there had been, I think it’s very clear where the responsibility would have been placed. We created the Department of Homeland Security, and America is safer. I’d like to give the president some credit for that. Now, I strongly disagreed with the strategy employed by Secretary Rumsfeld. And I’m the only one at the time that said we’ve got to employ a new strategy and outlined what it was, which is the Petraeus strategy. But we are succeeding now in Iraq.

We must provide our children a strong, better country

A lack of complacency shouldn’t provoke a lack of confidence

We don’t have as much to fear as we had in the past

Those who gave their lives deserve to be remembered

First reaction to Sept 11: “This is war”

Staff members in the cramped office, watching TV, saw a second plane hit the other tower. “This is war,” McCain said quietly.

[Before McCain left the office, he] issued the statement they’d decided on: “There are no words to describe adequately the enormity of these attacks on the US or the depravity of those who are responsible for them. These were not just crimes against the US, they are acts of war. We will prevail in this war, as we have prevailed in the past.“

[Over the next few days, McCain] offered more leadership then than did the President. ”The best thing that we can do as Americans is to remain calm,“ McCain told ABC. ”Obviously, this is an act of war that has been committed against the US,“ he told another interviewer.

Argued for base closings even in the wake of 9/11

But this was an issue that went to McCain’s disdain for pork, particularly when military funds would be wasted, particularly now. He was disturbed that even in a national crisis parochial interests might prevail. Speaking with some agitation on the Senate floor, McCain said, “The fact is, at a time when we rally around the president and our military and civilian leadership. It is that clear.“ He became a bit testy with his friend and usual ally, Susan Collins, who had just argued against more base closings. ”I would like for the Senator from Maine to talk to General Schwarzkopf & the Joint Chiefs of Staff,“ he said. ”It’s business as usual in the US Congress. We’re not prepared to give up anything to fight this war on terrorism.“ McCain’s position on the base-closings prevailed, on a close vote.

Channel fear into productive missions and activities

[On another show], McCain said, “I think you have to recognize that there is a reason for fear...but you have to suppress it. You have to channel it, and it can be beneficial in a way because it will make you more alert. It’ll make you more efficient. And it will make you more aware of everything that’s going on around you. You know, Ernest Hemingway’s famous definition on courage was ‘grace under pressure.’ You’ve got to show grace under pressure and that grace is to go on with your life, not let it rule you, not let it overcome you.“

1993: Led effort to normalize relations with Vietnam

Accused in 2000 SC primary of ignoring veterans' groups

The big guns trained on him. A self-styled leader of an obscure veteran's group publicly accused McCain of not caring about veterans. This was mild compared to the stuff below the radar screen. A professor at fundamentalist Bob Jones University sent out an email alleging McCain had sired two illegitimate kids. (In fact, he had adopted his first wife's two kids.) There were vicious fliers about the candidate's current wife's drug habits and charges that he had a black daughter. (His wife years ago had an addiction to pain medication, which she acknowledged and has overcome, and the McCains have an adopted daughter from Bangladesh.)

The successful Palmetto State jihad against McCain was orchestrated by Pat Robertson and the religious right, with the knowledge and subtle assistance of some party leaders.

Focuses on issue-specific waste, not overall Pentagon reform

Early in his political career, McCain had actually bragged that he could bring back fat defense contracts to his Arizona district. McCain emerged, not only as a sophisticated voice on national security issues, which he was, but also sufficiently secure to rail against Pentagon procurement waste on an issue-specific basis, and to do so while still maintaining his hawkish credentials.

Only the former POW, third generational scion of a military family, and currently second-ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, could begin that overdue house-cleaning at the Pentagon, which so many idealistic, committed officers view as necessary.

“Rogue state rollback” avoids use of US troops

Accepts gays in military under current policy

McCAIN: No, I will not. [I agree when] military leaders that you and I respect say that this policy is a good one. I will support the present policy.

Military’s political leaders need military backgrounds

Women have proven themselves in combat-no restrictions

Bombing useless targets in Vietnam destroyed US morale

Pres. needs experience more than briefing books

Discard ABM Treaty and develop a missile defense

Use force, with US control, only for vital interests

Make all defense contracts fixed-cost; costs out of control

Cited 245 pork projects, or $3.5M waste in defense bill

[When discussing] the 2002 defense bill, McCain liste 245 gratuitous pork projects totaling more than $3.5 million in wasteful spending. “This bill chooses to fund pork-barrel projects with little relationship to national defense at a time of scarce resources & under-funded urgent defense priorities,” McCain rightly noted.

[One observer said], “I gave this body motion like, ‘Ok, what are you going to do now?’ And McCain’s body motion response was, ‘That’s it. The speech.’ ” The bill passed 94-2, with only McCain and Sen. Phil Gramm voting no.

Clean up waste in defense acquisition

A: Line-item veto is the best tool. We need it very badly. There are a whole variety of programs that need to be cut, & I would start in cleaning up defense acquisition. The cost overruns associated with the purchase of our weapons systems is completely out of control. There’s a $160 million combat ship that is now $400 million. We’ve got to get that under control first. Let’s stop the pork- barrel spending; then we’ll go at programs.

Eliminate defense pork, but increase most other defense

Indicate your priorities for defense spending:
• Greatly Increase: Intelligence operations; Pay for active duty personnel; Programs to improve troop retention rates; Troop and equipment readiness
• Slightly Increase: Armed Forces personnel training; Military hardware; Modernization of weaponry and equipment; National missile defense; Research and development of new weapons
• Eliminate: Defense pork barrel projects

Terminate C-130, B-2, and Seawolf; use funds to modernize

Politicians keep unneeded bases open for political purposes

Keep health care promises to aging veterans

$6.4B of military spending waste is a disgrace

Raise military pay to avoid military draft

Military personnel on food stamps is a national disgrace

Europeans should spend more on defense, within NATO

2005: interrogations must follow US Army Field Manual rules

Despite the invaluable intelligence we were obtaining through the program of enhanced interrogation, in 2005 there was a move on Capitol Hill, led by Sen. John McCain & Lindsey Graham, to end it and require that all government interrogations be conducted under the rules of the US Army Field Manual.

In an effort to reach an agreement with McCain and explain to him how damaging his proposed amendment would be, the CIA Director and I met with him in a secure conference room at the Capitol and tried to brief him about the program and the critical intelligence we had gained. But John didn't want to hear what we had to say. We had hardly started when he lost his temper and stormed out of the meeting.

Bush administration’s waterboarding was torture

A: Well, waterboarding to me is torture, OK? And waterboarding was advocated by the administration, and according to a published report, was used. But the point is we’ve had our disagreements and I’ve been called a “maverick.” And I’m not the most popular person in my party.

McCain Amendment: Torture ban passed by veto-proof majority

Congress was understandably unmoved by these disclaimers and enacted the McCain Amendment, preventing not only what the memo regards as torture but also "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of detainees. Despite the threat of a veto, the legislation passed by overwhelming, veto-proof majorities in both houses. Rather than see his veto overridden, the president signed the law but simultaneously issued a signing statement indicating that he would not be bound by the new law.

Hiding torture is wrong, and harms US credibility abroad

A: I do not know. But the actions were absolutely wrong. I’m glad that the attorney general is going to investigate it. This harms the credibility and the moral standing of America in the world, again. There will be skepticism and cynicism all over the world about how we treat prisoners and whether we practice torture or not.

Q: The CIA director says the tapes were destroyed to protect the identity of the officers involved in the interrogation. Do you buy that?

A: We certainly want to do everything we can to protect the identities of those in the CIA. But he was advised not to [destroy the tapes] b several people, including high-ranking members of the administration. We’re also setting up a false argument here between torture & moral high ground. That doesn’t have to be. We have to keep the moral high ground. We can do it without torturing people.

Waterboarding is torture; we’re not going to torture people

ROMNEY: I do not believe that as a presidential candidate, it is wise for us to describe precisely what techniques we will use in interrogating people.

McCAIN: I am astonished that Mitt would think such a torture would be inflicted on anyone who we held captive and anyone could believe that that’s not torture. It’s in violation of the Geneva Convention. It’s in violation of existing law. If we’re going to get the high ground in this world and we’re going to be the America that we have cherished and loved for more than 200 years. We’re not going to torture people. It’s clear the definition of torture. [Waterboarding] is in violation of laws we have passed.

Waterboarding is torture; & as A.G., Mukasey will declare it

A: Mukasey said that he believes that the president does not have the authority to violate existing law concerning treatment of prisoners. That means clearly that waterboarding is illegal. He also has said that he finds waterboarding repugnant. I have written him saying then there is no doubt that once you get briefed then you will declare waterboarding as torture. And so I am confident that he will declare that practice illegal, and therefore I will vote to support his nomination.

Q: You yourself say there is no doubt about it, waterboarding is torture.

A: It is torture. There’s no doubt about it. Mr. Mukasey will get briefed on the specific procedures that are being used. And I have every anticipation that he will say that it’s illegal and that it is torture.

Torture supported only by people without military experience

McCAIN: It was interesting during the debate on torture, retired military, from Colin Powell on down, and others, sided with me. Those who had no military experience took the other side. [The military consensus is that] any information that we may gain through the use of torture can never, ever be counterbalanced by the damage it does to America’s reputation

Torture is ineffective as interrogation & for world opinion

A: That is a million-to-one scenario. But I would take that responsibility [to authorize aggressive interrogations. However,] we could never gain as much from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people. When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us as we underwent torture, is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them. It’s not about the terrorists, it’s about us. It’s about what kind of country we are. The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they’re going to tell you what they think you want to know. We have procedures for interrogation, adequate in 999,999 [out of a million] cases, and if we agree to torture people, we will do ourselves great harm in the world.

Close Guantanamo Bay prison; announce no-torture policy

A: I would probably announce the closing of Guantanamo Bay. I would move those detainees to Fort Leavenworth. I would announce we will not torture anyone. I would announce that climate change is a big issue, because we’ve got some image problems in the world. Clearly, in the area of “propaganda,” in the area of the war of ideas, we are not winning--well, in some ways we are behind. Al-Jazeera and others maybe, in my view--may sometimes do a better job than we are. At the end of the day, it’s how people make up their minds as to whether they want to embrace our values, our standards, our ideals, or whether they want to go the path of radical Islamic extremism, which is an affront to everything we stand for and believe in.

Torture has never worked throughout history

A: If you torture someone, they’re going to tell you anything they think you want to know. It is an affront to everything we stand for and believe in. Every retired military officer, everybody who’s been in war doesn’t want to torture people and think that it’s the wrong thing to do. And history shows that. We cannot torture people & maintain our moral superiority in the world.

Q: But George Tenet says...

A: I don’t care what George Tenet says. I know what’s right. I know what’s morally right as far as America’s behavior.

Q: But Tenet says we saved live through some of these techniques...

A: I don’t accept that fundamental thesis, because it’s never worked throughout history. That’s just a fundamental fact. We’ve gotten a huge amount of misinformation from these techniques

Abusing prisoners hurts America's cause in War on Terror

Experience has taught me: the US military must not fail

A: I have a record of being involved in national security issues which involve the toughest decisions that any president can make, and that is to send our young men and women into harm’s way. I had a town hall meeting and a woman stood up and she said, “Senator McCain, I want you to do me the honor of wearing a bracelet with my son’s name on it.” He was 22 years old and he was killed in combat outside of Baghdad. Then she said, “Senator McCain, promise me one thing, that you’ll do everything in your power to make sure that my son’s death was not in vain.“ That means that that mission succeeds.

A war that I was in, where we had an Army, that it wasn’t through any fault of their own, but they were defeated. And I know how hard it is for a military to recover from that. And it did and we will win this one and we won’t come home in defeat and dishonor.

Inappropriate to lie to public; tell Americans what we face

A: I can’t imagine it, to start with. I just think that the one thing you have to have, as president, is your credibility.

Q: What about in a national security situation?

A: I guess you could draw a scenario where Americans were facing a threat to our very existence and you had to not have them panic or something. But if you deceive the American people, and you don’t tell them the truth about a national security challenge, then they become disillusioned. That’s happened in the past.

Q: Vietnam, for example.

A: Yeah. the Vietnam War. “The light is at the end of the tunnel,” and it turned out to be a train. I think one of the reasons why America came out of the Great Depression is that FDR went on the radio and said “here’s what we’re facing but here’s what we’re going to do.” And every time the great presidents have not told the American people the complete truth, then they’ve paid a price for it.

1973: America is better country than when I left 6 years ago

Vietnam generation still haunted by specter of Vietnam

Casualty of Vietnam was loss of America’s faith in herself

Worked with John Kerry on Vietnam POWs

• John McCain and John Kerry, two of the most decorated Vietnam Vets in the Senate, were dead set on normalizing relations with Vietnam as part of the reconciliation process. (President George H W. Bush, late in his term, praised them for “writing the last chapter of the Vietnam War.”)
• McCain is famously impatient and does not suffer criticism of his honor gladly, especially when it has some validity.
• McCain is drawn to quixotic causes and unlikely partnerships with onetime enemies, especially concerning Vietnam.
• The people who believe there are still POWs in Vietnam and Laos hate John McCain. The feeling is often mutual.

Immutable principle of war: luck is unreliable

When I heard the warning tone that an enemy SAM battery had locked onto me, I was moments away from dropping my bombs on target. I thought I had enough time to do my job and still evade the missile. I had 5-1/2 very long years to regret my decision and the lapse that had blinded me to one of the immutable principles of war and life: luck is unreliable.

Vietnam not wrong, but how it was fought and led was

Disagrees with Perot: No more POWs in Vietnam

Both McCain and Perot remained active in POW matters after the war. But over time they found themselves at opposite ends of the most important issue: Whether American servicemen were still being held in Southeast Asia. Through the early 1990s, Perot insisted that government officials had ignored evidence of servicemen still in captivity, while McCain doubted a conspiracy occurred and believed much evidence of prisoner sightings was discredited. Perot [was accused of] the rash pursuit of conspiracy theories, while McCain became angered by people he thought were creating false hopes that missing servicemen were still alive. Their disagreement led to sharp words at a Senate committee hearing in 1992.

Vietnam was a worthy cause despite losing

Keep “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy - it works

Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Smith, R-TX]: America is safe today not because terrorists and spies have given up their goal to destroy our freedoms and our way of life. We are safe today because the men and women of our Armed Forces, our intelligence community, and our law enforcement agencies work every single day to protect us. And Congress must ensure that they are equipped with the resources they need to counteract continuing terrorist threats. On Feb. 28, three important provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act will expire. These provisions give investigators in national security cases the authority to conduct "roving" wiretaps, to seek certain business records, and to gather intelligence on lone terrorists who are not affiliated with a known terrorist group. The Patriot Act works. It has proved effective in preventing terrorist attacks and protecting Americans. To let these provisions expire would leave every American less safe.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Conyers, D-MI]: Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows a secret FISA court to authorize our government to collect business records or anything else, requiring that a person or business produce virtually any type record. We didn't think that that was right then. We don't think it's right now. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure which require the government to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. And so I urge a "no" vote on the extension of these expiring provisions.
Status: Passed 86-12

Voted NO on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. HAGEL: The war in Iraq has pushed the US Army to the breaking point. When we deploy our military, we have an obligation to ensure that our troops are rested, ready, prepared, fully trained, and fully equipped. Today's Armed Forces are being deployed repeatedly for increasing periods of time. This is quickly wearing down the troops and their families, impacting the mental and physical health of our troops. Further, these deployments are affecting the recruiting and retention rates of the military. For example, the Army reached only a little over 80% of its recruiting goal for June. This is the second month in a row that the Army has failed to recruit the number of new soldiers needed to fill the ranks. And this is with $1 billion in large cash bonus incentives.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. KYL: Time in theater and dwell times should be a goal, rather than an absolute fixed requirement that becomes the policy of the US military determined by congressional action. By mandating a certain policy for deployment time or dwell time, the Congress is engaged in the most explicit micromanaging of what is obviously a function for the Commander in Chief and military commanders to perform. This is not something Members of Congress are knowledgeable about or would have the ability to dictate in any responsible fashion. It also would be unconstitutional. Clearly, the dwell times of troops or the amount of time in theater is an obligation of the Commander in Chief, not something for the Congress to determine.

Voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.

Sen. GRAHAM [recommending NO]: The fundamental question for the Senate to answer when it comes to determining enemy combatant status is, Who should make that determination? Should that be a military decision or should it be a judicial decision? That is something our military should do.

Sen. SPECTER [recommending YES]: My amendment would retain the constitutional right of habeas corpus for people detained at Guantanamo. The right of habeas corpus was established in the Magna Carta in 1215 when, in England, there was action taken against King John to establish a procedure to prevent illegal detention. What the bill seeks to do is to set back basic rights by some 900 years. This amendment would strike that provision and make certain that the constitutional right of habeas corpus is maintained.

GRAHAM: Do we really want enemy prisoners to bring every lawsuit known to man against the people fighting the war and protecting us? No enemy prisoner should have access to Federal courts--a noncitizen, enemy combatant terrorist--to bring a lawsuit against those fighting on our behalf. No judge should have the ability to make a decision that has been historically reserved to the military. That does not make us safer.

SPECTER: The US Constitution states that "Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." We do not have either rebellion or invasion, so it is a little hard for me to see, as a basic principle of constitutional law, how the Congress can suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

GRAHAM: If the Supreme Court does say in the next round of legal appeals there is a constitutional right to habeas corpus by those detained at Guantanamo Bay, then Sen. Specter is absolutely right.

Voted NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

I question the need for a very lengthy, detailed report every 3 months. We will probably see those reports leaked to the press.

This amendment would spread out for the world--and especially for al-Qaida and its related organizations--precisely what interrogation techniques are going to be used.

If we lay out, in an unclassified version, a description of the techniques by the Attorney General, that description will be in al-Qaida and Hezbollah and all of the other terrorist organizations' playbook. They will train their assets that: This is what you must be expected to do, and Allah wants you to resist these techniques.

We are passing this bill so that we can detain people. If we catch someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, we have no way to hold him, no way to ask him the questions and get the information we need, because the uncertainty has brought the program to a close. It is vitally important to our security, and unfortunately this amendment would imperil it.

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.

A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.

Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.
• The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected.
• We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents.
• Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act.

Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision.

Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism.

• Empower the President under the Trading with the Enemy Act to prohibit US businesses and their subsidiaries from transacting with foreign businesses identified as having links to terrorism.
• Forbid US businesses and their subsidiaries from engaging in transactions with any foreign business whose parent country has been identified as a supporter of international terrorism.
• Require the President to publish a list of foreign businesses identified as having links to terrorism, and bans US ownership or control of foreign businesses engaged in transactions with such businesses.
• Call for US businesses to disclose in their annual reports any ownership stake of at least 10% in a foreign business that is itself engaging in transactions with a proscribed foreign business.

Voted NO on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders.

Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures.

Voted YES on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels.

Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP.

Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%.

Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex basic training.

Voted NO on favoring 36 vetoed military projects.

Voted YES on banning chemical weapons.

Voted YES on considering deploying NMD, and amending ABM Treaty.

Voted NO on 1996 Defense Appropriations.

Federalize aviation security.

Establishes the Transportation Security Administration, including:
• civil aviation security, and related research and development activities;
• day-to-day Federal security screening operations for passenger air transportation and intrastate air transportation;
• policies, strategies, and plans for dealing with threats to transportation;
• domestic transportation during a national emergency, including aviation, rail, and other surface transportation
• management of security information, including notifying airport or airline security officers of the identity of individuals known to pose a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety.

Rated 0% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record.

Peace Action, the merger of The Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) and The Freeze, has effectively mobilized for peace and disarmament for over forty years. As the nation's largest grassroots peace group we get results: from the 1963 treaty to ban above ground nuclear testing, to the 1996 signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, from ending the war in Vietnam, to blocking weapons sales to human rights abusing countries. We are proof that ordinary people can change the world. At Peace Action we believe...

• That every person has the right to live without the threat of nuclear weapons.
• That war is not a suitable response to conflict.
• That America has the resources to both protect and provide for its citizens.

The ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Sponsored bill giving higher priority to rail security.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to provide increased rail transportation security.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. McCAIN: We must do what is possible to protect Americans at home. Our Nation's transit system, Amtrak, and the freight railroads, I am sad to say, remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Though we have increased dramatically our security capabilities since 9/11, we have more to do. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has not yet completed a vulnerability assessment for the rail system, nor is there an integrated security plan that reflects the unique characteristics of passenger and freight rail operations.

This legislation would authorize resources to ensure rail transportation security receives a high priority in our efforts to secure our country from terrorism. The legislation directs DHS to complete a vulnerability assessment for the rail system and make recommendations for addressing security weaknesses within 180 days of enactment.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; never came to a vote.

Sponsored bill banning torture of terrorists in US custody.

OnTheIssues.org Explanation: This amendment would ban waterboarding at Guantanamo prison. McCain specifies several international treaties which include bans on waterboarding; and cites "regardless of physical location" to include Guantanamo. McCain cites too that this ban is nothing new; but the US has, in fact, been using waterboarding at Guantanamo.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To prohibit cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons under the custody or control of the United States Government.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. McCAIN: This amendment would prohibit cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in the detention of the US Government. The amendment doesn't sound like anything new. That is because it isn't. The prohibition has been a longstanding principle in both law and policy in the United States. All of this seems to be common sense and in accordance with longstanding American values.

EXCERPTS OF BILL:

• No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
• The President may waive the prohibition, on a case-by-case basis, if the President determines that the waiver is required for a military or national security necessity; and submits to Congress timely notice of the exercise of the waiver.
• This shall not be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
• The term "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" means punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, as defined in the UN Convention Against Torture, December 10, 1984.

  LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Proposed amendment withdrawn 11/4/2005.

  Source: Defense Authorization Bill (S.AMDT.1556 to S.1042) 05-SP1556 on Jul 25, 2005

  Innovate intelligence-gathering for future hard targets.

  McCain signed the Report of the Commission on Intelligence on WMDs:

  Human Intelligence: Conclusion 1

  Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a hard target for human intelligence, but it will not be the last that we face. When faced with such targets in the future, the United States needs to supplement its traditional methodologies with more innovative approaches.

  Conclusion 2

  Rewarding CIA and DIA case officers based on how many assets they recruit impedes the recruitment of quality assets.

  Conclusion 3

  The CIA, and even more so the DIA, must do a better job of testing the veracity of crucial human sources.

  Conclusion 4

  Iraq's denial and deception efforts successfully hampered U.S. intelligence collection.

  Conclusion 5

  In the case of Iraq, collectors of intelligence absorbed the prevailing analytic consensus and tended to reject or ignore contrary information. The result was "tunnel vision" focusing on the Intelligence Community's existing assumptions. Source: Report to the President on WMDs, p.158-162 05-WMD-07 on Mar 31, 2005

  Assessments of al Qaida in Afghanistan in 2001 were accurate.

  McCain signed the Report of the Commission on Intelligence on WMDs:

  Al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan: Summary & Findings

  The Commission compared the Intelligence Community's assessment of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons in Afghanistan before and after Operation Enduring Freedom, the U.S.-led invasion of October 2001. We believe that the Intelligence Community correctly assessed al-Qa'ida's limited ability to use these weapons to inflict mass casualties. However, the war in Afghanistan and its aftermath revealed important new information about the level and direction of chemical, biological, and nuclear research and development that was underway. Specifically, we found that:
  • The Intelligence Community concluded that at the time of the commencement of the war in Afghanistan, al-Qa'ida's biological weapons program was both more advanced and more sophisticated than analysts had previously assessed;
  • Analytic judgments regarding al-Qa'ida's chemical weapons capabilities did not change significantly as a result of the war;
  • The Community appears to have been correct in its assessment of the low probability that al-Qa'ida had built a nuclear device or obtained sufficient material for a nuclear weapon. However, the war in Afghanistan brought to light detailed and revealing information about the direction and progress of al-Qa'ida's radiological and nuclear ambitions;
  • Intelligence gaps prior to the war in Afghanistan prevented the Intelligence Community from being able to assess with much certainty the extent or specific nature of al-Qa'ida's weapons of mass destruction capabilities;
  • Analysis of al-Qa'ida's potential development of weapons of mass destruction in Afghanistan did not benefit from leveraging different analytic disciplines; and
  • Analysts writing on al-Qa'ida's potential weapons of mass destruction efforts in Afghanistan did not adequately or explicitly state the basis for or the assumptions underlying their most critical judgments.
  Source: Report to the President on WMDs, p.267 05-WMD-11 on Mar 31, 2005

  CIA needs more focus on counterterrorism.

  McCain signed the Report of the Commission on Intelligence on WMDs:

  TERRORISM: MANAGING TODAY'S THREAT: Summary & Findings

  As part of the Commission's charter to assess whether the Intelligence Community is properly postured to support the U.S. government's efforts to respond to the threats of the 21st century, we reviewed the progress the Intelligence Community has made in strengthening its counterterrorism capabilities since the September 11 attacks. We found that, although the Community has made significant strides in configuring itself to better protect the homeland and take the fight to terrorists abroad, much remains to be done to ensure the efficient use of limited resources among agencies responsible for counterterrorism intelligence. The U.S. government has not yet successfully defined the roles, missions, authorities, and the means of sharing information among our national and homeland security organs. Specifically, we found that:
  • Information flow between the federal, state, local, and tribal levels--both up and down--is not yet well coordinated;
  • Ambiguities in the respective roles and authorities of the National Counterterrorism Center and the Intelligence Community-wide Counterterrorist Center have not been resolved;
  • Persistent conflicts over the roles, missions, and authorities of counterterrorism organizations may limit the Community's ability to warn of potential threats;
  • Confusion and conflict regarding the roles, missions, and authorities of counterterrorism organizations have led to redundant efforts across the Community and inefficient use of limited resources; and
  • The failure to manage counterterrorism resources from a Community perspective has limited the Intelligence Community's ability to understand and warn against terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction.
  Source: Report to the President on WMDs, p.279 05-WMD-12 on Mar 31, 2005

  So-called Legal Issues are myths; not real CIA hindrances.

  McCain signed the Report of the Commission on Intelligence on WMDs:

  Throughout our work we came across Intelligence Community leaders, operators, and analysts who claimed that they couldn't do their jobs because of a "legal issue." These "legal issues" arose in a variety of contexts, ranging from the Intelligence Community's dealings with U.S. persons to the legality of certain covert actions. And although there are, of course, very real (and necessary) legal restrictions on the Intelligence Community, quite often the cited legal impediments ended up being either myths that overcautious lawyers had never debunked or policy choices swathed in pseudo-legal justifications. Needless to say, such confusion about what the law actually requires can seriously hinder the Intelligence Community's ability to be proactive and innovative. Moreover, over time, it can breed uncertainty about real legal prohibitions.

  We believe this problem is the result of several factors, but for present purposes we note two. First, in the past there has not been a sizable legal staff that focused on Community issues. As a result, many Community problems were addressed through ad hoc , interagency task forces that tended to gravitate toward lowest common denominator solutions that were based on consensus and allowed action to be stalled by the doubts of the most cautious legal shop. Second, many rules and regulations governing the Intelligence Community have existed for decades with little thought given to the legal basis for the rules, or whether circumstances have changed the rules' applicability. Under such circumstances, it is unsurprising that legal "myths" have evolved.

  The recent creation of a DNI General Counsel's office will increase the probability that Community legal issues are addressed more seriously. By creating such an office, the DNI will help ensure that the Intelligence Community is fully able to confront the many real--and imaginary--legal issues that will arise.

  Source: Report to the President on WMDs, p.335 05-WMD-14 on Mar 31, 2005

  Intelligence community shares information poorly.

  McCain signed the Report of the Commission on Intelligence on WMDs:

  While the imperative to improve information sharing within and beyond the Intelligence Community is widely acknowledged, it is too infrequently noted that the Intelligence Community--and the new DNI--have an additional responsibility that is often in tension with the first: the need to protect intelligence sources and methods. What therefore is needed--and what is largely absent from today's Intelligence Community--are structures and processes for sharing intelligence information that are driven by commonly accepted principles of risk management.

  Concern about security in a narrow sense should not crowd out actions to ensure national security in the larger sense. Sometimes--indeed, often--the right answer will be to limit access to information because of security concerns; but collection agencies, which for perfectly understandable bureaucratic reasons may systematically undervalue the need to share information, should not make this decision.

  The term information "sharing" suggests that the federal government entity that collects the information "owns" it and can decide whether or not to "share" it with others. This concept is deeply embedded in the Intelligence Community's culture. We reject it. Information collected by the Intelligence Community--or for that matter, any government agency--belongs to the U.S. government. Officials are fiduciaries who hold the information in trust for the nation. They do not have authority to withhold or distribute it except as such authority is delegated by the President or provided by law. The Director of National Intelligence could take an important, symbolic first step toward changing the Intelligence Community's culture by jettisoning the term "information sharing" itself--perhaps in favor of the term "information integration" or "information access." But as the term "information sharing" has become common parlance, we use it to avoid confusion.

  Source: Report to the President on WMDs, p.429-430 05-WMD-15 on Mar 31, 2005

  CIA should work more with scientists to understand WMDs.

  McCain signed the Report of the Commission on Intelligence on WMDs:

  The threat of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons proliferation has transformed over the past two decades. The technical expertise required to produce these weapons has become increasingly widespread, while many of the materials needed to make them are widely available on the open market. Meanwhile, terrorists have expressed a growing demand for these weapons and demonstrated their willingness to use them. The Intelligence Community has not kept pace with these events.

  Rather than attempt a top-to-bottom assessment of the chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons threat, here we focus on relatively new aspects of the threat that present specific intelligence challenges, and that--in our view--require additional Intelligence Community reforms beyond those discussed in our other chapters. We recommend that:
  • The DNI take several specific measures aimed at better collaboration between the intelligence and biological science communities;
  • The National Counter Proliferation Center develop and ensure the implementation of a comprehensive biological weapons targeting strategy. This entails gaining real-time access to non-traditional information sources; filtering open source data; and devising specific collection initiatives directed at the resulting targets;
  • Intelligence Community, along with other relevant government bodies, support a more effective framework to interdict shipments of chemical, biological, and nuclear proliferation concern; and
  • The Intelligence Community better leverage existing legal and regulatory mechanisms to improve collection and analysis on chemical, biological, and nuclear threats.
  Source: Report to the President on WMDs, p.501 05-WMD-16 on Mar 31, 2005

  Sponsored bill for Iraq budget to be part of defense budget.

  McCain sponsored requiring Iraq War budget be part of regular defense budget

  OnTheIssues.org Explanation: Since the start of both the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war, expenditures for those war have been voted for in "emergency supplemental spending bills," instead of in the normal defense spending bill. That implies that the expenditures are unexpectedly high, which may have been true in the early years of the war. This amendment requires regular budgeting for the Afghanistan & Iraq wars.

  OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To require regular budgeting for ongoing military operations.

  EXCERPTS OF BILL:

  • The President's budget for each fiscal year after 2007 shall include--
  • a request for funds for such fiscal year for ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq;
  • an estimate of all funds expected to be required in that fiscal year for such operations; and
  • a detailed justification of the funds requested.

  LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote, 98-0, Vote Number: 170.

  Source: Defense Authorization Bill (S.AMDT.4242 to S.2766) 06-SP4242 on Jun 14, 2006

  Improve educational assistance for veterans.

  McCain co-sponsored improving educational assistance for veterans

  A bill to improve educational assistance for members of the Armed Forces and veterans in order to enhance recruitment and retention for the Armed Forces.

  Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education Act of 2008: to develop additional programs to enable members of the Armed Forces to attain a bachelor's degree while pursuing a military career.
  • Increases rates of educational assistance: (1) under the Montgomery GI Bill; (2) for members of the Selected Reserve.
  • Provides an annual stipend for individuals receiving basic educational assistance and pursuing a program of education at an approved institution of higher education.
  • Allows a member who has completed six years of service to transfer to one or more dependents any unused portion of the member's educational assistance entitlement.
  • Authorizes a member on active duty & entitled to basic educational assistance to use all or a portion thereof to repay any outstanding federal student loan.
  • Makes eligible for enrollment under the Montgomery GI Bill certain retired personnel originally enrolled in the veterans' educational assistance program.
  Congress makes the following findings:
  1. The World War II-era GI Bill assisted almost 8,000,000 members of the Armed Forces in readjusting to civilian life after completing their service to the nation.
  2. The establishment of the All Volunteer Force in 1973 has produced highly professional Armed Forces.
  3. The Sonny Montgomery GI Bill was enacted in 1984 to sustain the All Volunteer Force by providing educational benefits to aid in the recruitment and retention of highly qualified personnel.
  4. The All Volunteer Force depends for its effectiveness and vitality on successful recruiting of highly capable men and women.
  5. The achievement of educational goals, including obtaining the means to a college degree, has traditionally been a key reason for volunteering for service in the Armed Forces.
  Source: Enhancement of Recruitment ThrU Education Act (S2938/HR5944) 08-S2938 on Apr 29, 2008

  No transfers of Gitmo prisoners to US or abroad.

  McCain co-sponsored H.R.401 & S.165

  Congressional Summary: To extend and enhance limitations on the transfer or release of individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay. No amounts appropriated for any agency of the US Government may be used, for two years, to construct or modify any facility in the US, to house an individual detained at Guantanamo.

  Proponents reasons for voting YEA: Rep. WALORSKI: 21 terrorists have been released just in November alone to foreign countries. This measure would repeal current law that has allowed the administration to transfer prisoners to foreign countries and reduce the population at GTMO down to 127. Detainees at GTMO pose a real threat to our national security. HR 401 would prohibit any detainee transfers to Yemen. Yemen's branch of al Qaeda was founded by former GTMO detainees. We cannot risk trusting the world's most dangerous terrorists to its most dangerous places, nor should we simply cut them loose in rich, stable countries with no security safeguards in place.

  Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (CloseGuantanamo.org article, Jan. 2015): The prison at Guantanamo Bay has been open for 13 years. In 2009, President Obama pledged to close Guantanamo within a year. Yet it remains open, undermining America's values and national security. Almost half of the remaining 122 prisoners--55 men in total--were cleared for release in 2010 through 2013. Some of these men were previously cleared by the Bush Administration--some as long ago as 2004. It is unacceptable that the U.S. government continues to hold men that its own national security experts have recommended for release or transfer, and that Congress has intervened to maintain this deplorable state of affairs. We call for the immediate closure of Guantanamo. Guantanamo harms our nation every day it stays open, and it continues to serve as a potent symbol for terrorist recruitment.

  Source: Detaining Terrorists to Protect America Act 15_S165 on Feb 23, 2015

  $515B for military plus $89B off sequester for wars.

  McCain voted YEA National Defense Authorization Act

  Congressional Summary: HR 1735: The National Defense Authorization Act authorizes FY2016 appropriations and sets forth policies regarding the military activities of the Department of Defense (DOD), and military construction. This bill also authorizes appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), which are exempt from discretionary spending limits. The bill authorizes appropriations for base realignment and closure (BRAC) activities and prohibits an additional BRAC round.

  Wikipedia Summary: The NDAA specifies the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense (DOD) for Fiscal Year 2016. The law authorizes the $515 billion in spending for national defense and an additional $89.2 billion for the Overseas Contingency Operations fund (OCO).

  Opposition statement by Rep. Gerry Connolly (May 15, 2015): Congressman Connolly said he opposed the bill because it fails to end sequestration, and pits domestic investments versus defense investments. Said Connolly, "This NDAA uses a disingenuous budget mechanism to circumvent sequestration. It fails to end sequestration."

  Support statement by BreakingDefense.com(Sept, 2015): Republicans bypassed the BCA spending caps (the so-called sequester) by shoving nearly $90 billion into the OCO account, designating routine spending as an emergency war expenses exempted from the caps. This gimmick got President Barack Obama the funding he requested but left the caps in place on domestic spending, a Democratic priority. "The White House's veto announcement is shameful," Sen. John McCain said. "The NDAA is a policy bill. It cannot raise the budget caps. It is absurd to veto the NDAA for something that the NDAA cannot do."

  Legislative outcome: House rollcall #532 on passed 270-156-15 on Oct. 1, 2015; Senate rollcall #277 passed 70-27-3 on Oct. 7, 2015; vetoed by Pres. Obama on Oct. 22, 2015; passed and signed after amendments.

  Source: Congressional vote 15-HR1735 on Apr 13, 2015

  Click here for 6 older quotations from John McCain on Homeland Security. Click here for definitions & background information on Homeland Security. Click here for VoteMatch responses by John McCain. Click here for AmericansElect.org quiz by John McCain. Click here for MyOcracy.org quiz by John McCain. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of John McCain. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of John McCain.
  Other candidates on Homeland Security:	John McCain on other issues:
  Former Presidents/Veeps: George W. Bush (R,2001-2009) V.P.Dick Cheney Bill Clinton (D,1993-2001) V.P.Al Gore George Bush Sr. (R,1989-1993) Ronald Reagan (R,1981-1989) Jimmy Carter (D,1977-1981) Gerald Ford (R,1974-1977) Richard Nixon (R,1969-1974) Lyndon Johnson (D,1963-1969) John F. Kennedy (D,1961-1963) Dwight Eisenhower (R,1953-1961) Harry_S_TrumanHarry S Truman(D,1945-1953) Religious Leaders: New Testament Old Testament Pope Francis Political Thinkers: Noam Chomsky Milton Friedman Arianna Huffington Rush Limbaugh Tea Party Ayn Rand Secy.Robert Reich Joe Scarborough Gov.Jesse Ventura	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty

  
  
  
  
  
  Page last updated: Oct 27, 2021