Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

I attended, as did all of my colleagues, the President's State of the Union Message the night before last. Obviously, as always, the President delivers an excellent speech.

I must say that in the years I have attended the President's State of the Union Message, I have never seen a message on national security and foreign policy as disconnected from reality as the President's speech. Obviously it had minor importance by the amount of time that was taken in the speech, but what was most interesting was the President portrayed a Middle East, in particular, that has little relation to the reality today and the ongoing tragedies, deaths, and sacrifice because of a failure of American leadership.

In interesting polling data today, a Pew Research poll indicates:

More Now See Failure than Success in Iraq, Afghanistan

Little Partisan Gap in Views of Whether U.S. Has Reached

Goals.

It continues:

After more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan,

the public does not think the United States has achieved its

goals in either country. About half of Americans (52%) say

the U.S. has mostly failed to achieve its goals in

Afghanistan while 38% say it has mostly succeeded.

Opinions about the U.S. war in Iraq are virtually the same; 52 percent say the United States has mostly failed in reaching its goals there while 38 percent say it has mostly succeeded.

Continuing:

In both cases, evaluations of the wars have turned more

negative in recent years. In November 2011, as the U.S. was

completing its military withdrawal from Iraq, a majority

(56%) thought the U.S. had achieved its goals there.

So the American people, despite the rhetoric from the administration--some of it incredibly bizarre--have figured out that after many years of sacrifice, expenditure of American blood and treasure, we are looking at and staring failure in the face.

I will quote from the President's speech the night before last.

On Iraq, the President said:

When I took office, nearly 180,000 troops were serving in

Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, all our troops are out of Iraq.

Yes, that is a correct statement. But what the President didn't go on to say was that Iraq is now collapsing under the weight of sectarian violence that now has exceeded that of 2008, one of the most dangerous years of the war. What the President didn't say was that there is sectarian violence, Sunni and Shia, initiated largely by President

Maliki, which is causing attacks throughout Iraq--bomb detonations, IEDs, attacks on various institutions. President Maliki has driven his own vice president out of the country. The list goes on and on.

I say to my colleagues, there is no greater example of our failure in Iraq than Fallujah today. In the second battle of Fallujah, in 2007, the United States of America lost 96 marines and soldiers killed, over 600 wounded. Today, vehicles are driving through the streets of Fallujah flying Al-Qaeda flags. Al-Qaeda is now in charge in Fallujah.

I wonder what we tell families of those brave soldiers and marines who were killed and wounded in the first and second battle of Fallujah. Because in the words of General Petraeus, who was the architect of the surge--which most of my colleagues, including the President of the United States, said would fail, when actually there were many of us who knew that it would and did succeed: We won the war but lost the peace.

We lost the peace because the United States of America did not leave a residual force behind, thereby allowing the situation to deteriorate to where it is today with Al-Qaeda now in charge of the city of Fallujah, Ramadi--the Syria-Iraq border now being the headquarters and staging areas of Al-Qaeda in both Syria and Iraq. Their black flags now fly over cities where brave Americans, marines and soldiers, sacrificed their lives and their well-being.

Gen. James Conway, who commanded the marines in the first battle of Fallujah in April 2004, commenting on failures of the administration's policies in Iraq stated: ``In some ways, the al-Qaeda grand strategy is vindicated.'' He deplored U.S. policies, appeared weak and confused in the wake of how hard we fought to get those cities back in the first place.

What did the President of the United States say? Did he mention Fallujah? Of course not.

He said:

When I took office, nearly 180,000 troops were serving in

Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, all our troops are out of Iraq.

Yes, the troops are out of Iraq and the place is going to hell in a hand basket.

Don't think that these people, Al-Qaeda and Al Nusra, are not intent on pursuing their goals of radical Islam right to the United States of America. This should concern every one of my colleagues and every American citizen.

Yesterday there was a hearing in the Senate Intelligence Committee:

Al Qaida faction in Syria contemplating U.S. attack,

intelligence officials warn.

Senate hears Nusra Front has ``aspirations for attacks on

the homeland'' amid concern over civil war's terrorism

implications.

Intelligence officials have claimed that a faction linked

to al-Qaida in Syria has a desire to launch a domestic attack

on the US, an assertion that underscored the growing

importance of the Syrian civil war to global terrorism.

The Nusra Front, one of the jihadist factions in Syria,

that aligns itself with al-Qaida, ``does have aspirations for

attack on the homeland,'' James Clapper, the US director of

national intelligence, told the Senate Intelligence Committee

on Wednesday, yesterday.

We know that with Al Nusra, Al-Qaeda, and other radical Islamist organizations, which, by the way, are attracting young men from all over the world, including Europe, is now one that is contemplating attacks on the United States of America.

I want to again mention General Conway, who commanded the marines during the first battle of Fallujah in 2004.

At the Heritage Foundation he said:

``We fought and died taking those cities,'' Conway said

Wednesday at the Heritage Foundation. Conway became the

Marine Corps commandant before retiring as a four-star

general.

A blunt-talking general who rarely seeks the spotlight,

Conway described his reaction to recent events in stark terms

during his brief remarks.

It causes Iraqi and U.S. policies to look a little weak and

confused in the wake of how hard we fought to get those

cities back in the first place.

Continuing:

``In some ways, the al-Qaeda grand strategy is

vindicated,'' Conway said, referring to the organization's

desire to wait out American forces.

Why did they wait out American forces? They waited out American forces because as soon as President Obama took office he announced we were leaving. He didn't announce a strategy for success. He didn't say we have to reach certain goals before we leave. He told everybody we were leaving.

It is very clear, when we look at electoral history, that his vote against the resolution concerning military action in Iraq was one of the factors that led him to the Presidency. But for him to stand before the American people and say:

When I took office, nearly 180,000 Americans were serving

in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, all our troops are out of

Iraq.

This is, at best, a very incomplete depiction of what has happened since all of those troops are out of Iraq.

Finally, General Conway said:

Those who lost people, those wounded, I think, are now

stripped of a coping mechanism, Conway said. ``If you have a

young Marine or soldier sitting with his legs missing, he

could at least previously say, `Well what we did was the

right thing. Iraq is better for it, and we won.' '' I'm not

sure that same individual sitting in that chair is thinking

those things these days. That's truly sad.

I have talked to and heard from so many of these brave young Americans who feel exactly as General Conway described. They don't know and they don't understand after the enormous sacrifices that they made that somehow now black Al-Qaeda flags are flying over Fallujah.

On Afghanistan, the President said:

More than 60,000 of our troops have already come home from

Afghanistan. With Afghan forces now in the lead for their own

security, our troops have moved to a support role. . . .

After 2014, we will support a unified Afghanistan as it

takes responsibility for its own future. If the Afghan

government signs a security agreement that we have

negotiated, a small force of Americans could remain in

Afghanistan with NATO allies to carry out two narrow

missions: training and assisting Afghan forces, and

counterterrorism operations to pursue any remnants of Al

Qaeda. For while our relationship with Afghanistan will

change, one thing will not: our resolve that terrorists do

not launch attacks against our country.

On the one hand, the President said there would be two narrow missions and yet our goal is still that terrorists don't launch attacks against our country. Again, he failed to put forward a true proposal for our strategy in Afghanistan and once again avoided offering any specifics on troop numbers. Why did we not leave a troop presence behind in Iraq? Because they would never give a troop number. Anybody who tells you the problem was not getting it through the Iraqi Parliament is not telling you the truth.

Senator Graham, Senator Lieberman, and I were in Erbil when President Barzani said: I will go to Baghdad. When we met with Allawi, he said: I will sit with Maliki. We went to Maliki and Maliki said: I will agree to have a force of troops in my country. How many? We could not give him an answer nor would the administration give him an answer.

In the words and testimony of our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the number cascaded down to 3,500, and that would have been a force that spent its time defending itself. Therefore, we did not leave a troop force behind in Iraq, and I have just described the consequences.

The same thing is happening in Afghanistan. The President will not say the force level he wants left behind in Afghanistan. Why is it he will not?

I want to point out that President Karzai of Afghanistan is a paranoid individual, and he has been incredibly unhelpful. It has been terribly disappointing to me--and I have known him for 14 years--that he is behaving as he is. But President Karzai's paranoia is somewhat understandable when he does not know whether the United States will remain, he doesn't know whether he can count on the United States, and he knows he has to stay in the neighborhood and accommodate for the likelihood now that the United States leaves completely. So his paranoia, to some degree, is much more understandable.

On our last trip to Afghanistan in early January, we saw firsthand the progress that has been made by American and Afghan forces, and such progress is a true testament to the positive impact our troops have had and the long-term benefits of our partnership with the Afghan people. The Afghan people, though, and military will need our continued support. If we pull out, if we see the Iraq movie again,

we will see the same thing happen in Afghanistan that is now happening in Iraq, and it doesn't take a lot of smarts to know that.

So now we turn to Syria. In Syria ``we will support the opposition that rejects the agenda of terrorist networks.'' What does that mean?

Despite promise after promise, the administration has refused to provide aid to the moderate opposition forces in Syria who are committed. It was 2 years ago when the President of the United States said: It is not a matter of whether Bashar al-Assad will leave office, it is a matter of when. It was over 2 years ago, at the Senate Armed Services Committee, when Secretary of Defense Panetta and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in answer to my question: Sir, it is inevitable, it is inevitable that Bashar al-Assad will leave office.

Does anybody believe that now?

Our failure to help the Free Syrian Army over time was negated and overwhelmed by the presence of 5,000 Hezbollah sent in by the Iranians, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, planeload after planeload of weapons that now land at the Damascus Airport from Russia, while they are loaded onto Russian-built helicopters, and barrel bombs, which are explosives packed with all kinds of nuts and bolts and other metals, are dropped out of those helicopters on men, women, and children.

But not to worry--not to worry--because the chemical weapons are leaving, apparently, according to the President, because he said: American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why Syria's chemical weapons are being eliminated, and we will continue to work with the international community to usher in the future the Syrian people deserve, a future free of a dictator, terror, and fear.

The chemical weapons he is hailing as a success--how much has been accomplished? The Syrian Government has delivered less than 5 percent of its deadliest chemical weapons agents to international authorities so far. This is a quote from an L.A. Times story:

Syria unlikely to meet deadline on its deadliest chemical

agents. President Bashar Assad's government has delivered

less than 5 percent of its deadliest chemical weapons agents.

The deadline is next week.

So even this claim about chemical weapons being removed does not bear scrutiny. But far, far, far more important--far more important, I say-- is that if we got rid of the chemical weapons Bashar al-Assad had, that would not change the equation on the ground. I am sure a Syrian mother cannot differentiate very well if her child is killed by a chemical weapon, a barrel bomb or is starved to death, as 120,000 men, women, and children have met that fate.

It is unbelievable. Now we are watching a charade take place in Geneva, and that of course has turned into a farce. Anybody who believes that Bashar al-Assad is going to willingly leave office, when he is winning the battle on the ground, obviously has no idea of the nature of Bashar Assad.

Again, the slaughter goes on, and one of the huge aspects of this happens to be the fact that it is no longer a civil war. I would remind my colleagues this conflict began because in homes there were some children who wrote some anti-Assad graffiti on the wall. They were rounded up by Assad's police and were tortured and beaten, and that began an Arab spring in Syria. That spread throughout the country and now has spread throughout the region.

As I just said, the Iraq-Syria border is now Al Qaeda. It is now controlled by them. The Iranians are all in, with 5,000 Hezbollah; Lebanon is destabilized; Jordan is overwhelmed by refugees; Turkey is even under strain; 100,000-some refugees are even in Kurdistan. It has turned into a regional conflict and one which, sooner or later, will finally erupt into a major conflict which is going to affect the United States of America.

The President of the United States may want to leave the Middle East alone, but I can assure my colleagues the Middle East will not leave America alone. Look at the statement made just today by our Director of National Intelligence who said that al-Nusra, an affiliate of Al Qaeda, is planning attacks on the United States of America.

The President said: Finally, let's remember that our leadership is defined not just by our defense against threats but by the enormous opportunities to do good and promote understandings around the globe, and no one is better positioned to take advantage of those opportunities than America.

I couldn't agree more. But when the United States is viewed by the world, particularly the Middle East, as weak, withdrawing, no longer involved or trying to disengage, then I am not sure we can have the effects the President outlined in his State of the Union speech.

I think it is very clear that a seminal moment, as far as the entire Middle East is concerned, was when the President of the United States said that because Bashar Assad had crossed the red line in the use of chemical weapons--there was indisputable evidence that 1,400 men, women, and children had been killed in chemical weapons attacks--we were going to have to enact strikes against Bashar Assad in Syria. A few days later, our Secretary of State, in one of the more incredible statements I have ever heard--said: Yeah, but the strike will be ``unbelievably small.'' I am not making that up. He said the strike would be ``unbelievably small.''

That must have really frightened the Syrians when they heard that any military strikes would be ``unbelievably small.''

The President of the United States then, without informing our allies--specifically the Saudis--according to published reports, took a 45-minute walk with his Chief of Staff and then decided he would go to the Congress of the United States for permission or for ratification of any attack he might make, and, obviously, that wasn't going to happen.

I say to my colleagues, I travel a lot in the Middle East. I can tell you--and I would even name names but not on the record--that at that moment our allies lost confidence, they lost belief in the United States. We are now watching countries in the region openly stating--for example, the Saudi Arabians refusing a seat on the National Security Council of the United Nations--and this is published everywhere--they no longer believe in the United States of America.

By the way, one of the other aspects of this, and there are many, is a Washington Post story of this morning:

Europeans are flocking to the war in Syria. What happens

when they come home?

The story is about a couple of people who went from England.

The distress among security officials is pervasive in

European capitals and in Washington. U.S. Intelligence Chief

James R. Clapper, Jr. told a congressional panel Wednesday

that the Syrian war had attracted about 7,000 foreign

fighters from as many as 50 nations and that at least one of

the main jihadist groups in Syria aspires to carry out an

attack in the United States. But Europe is a far closer and

more accessible target. The International Center for the

Study of Radicalization estimated last month that nearly

2,000 Western Europeans had traveled to Syria to fight and

that the number was rising fast.

Continuing to quote from the article:

French officials say 700 came from France. French Interior

Minister Manuel Valls asserted this month that returning

fighters represent ``the biggest threat the country faces in

the coming years.'' The anxiety has been especially acute in

Britain, where memories are still fresh of the July 2005

transit bombings. These attacks, which claimed 52 lives, were

carried out by homegrown radicals, at least two of whom had

received training in Pakistan. ``The penny hasn't dropped.

But Syria is a game-changer,'' Richard Walton, who leads

counterterrorism efforts at Scotland Yard, told the Evening

Standard newspaper. ``We are seeing it every day. You have

hundreds of people going to Syria, and if they don't get

killed they get radicalized.''

So we are in a situation of failed leadership over the last 5 years and the chickens, unfortunately, are beginning to come home to roost. When the President of the United States, in his address to the Nation, describes things in the Middle East as he did, I think it is very, very, very unfortunate because that does not comport with the actual facts on the ground.

I say to my colleagues, the American people no longer believe our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan was the right thing to do. I can tell my constituents that in 2008 things were very different. The surge had worked. We were gradually withdrawing from Syria. We had the Taliban in Afghanistan largely under control. In Syria, Bashar Assad was losing. Now the terrain throughout the Middle East is dramatically different.

As much as I regret to say, it is my obligation to tell my constituents my view; that is, we have very, very difficult times ahead. I do not like to predict that bad things are going to happen, but right now I don't see how they can be avoided.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues, Senator Graham, Senator Ayotte, and Senator Roberts.

Mr. President, I bring to the attention of my colleagues the front page of the Washington Post this morning: ``Hill balks at shifting CIA role in drone war.''

Congress has moved to block President Obama's plan to shift

control of the U.S. drone campaign from the CIA to the

Defense Department, inserting a secret provision in the

massive government spending bill introduced this week that

would preserve the spy agency's role in lethal

counterterrorism operations, U.S. officials said.

The measure, included in a classified annex to the $1.1

trillion federal budget plan, would restrict the use of any

funding to transfer unmanned aircraft or the authority to

carry out drone strikes from the CIA to the Pentagon. . . .

''

The Appropriations Committee is supposed to appropriate. The Appropriations Committee has no business making this decision. How many of my colleagues knew that this provision was in this mammoth appropriations bill? I bet a handful. The job of the Armed Services Committee and the job of the Intelligence Committee is to authorize these things. There was no hearing in the Armed Services Committee, there was no hearing in the Intelligence Committee on this issue. Instead, a major policy decision that has to do with the ability to defend this Nation against the forces of violent Islamic extremism is now being decided in a secret annex of a mammoth appropriations bill.

It is not the first time I say that the appropriators have authorized. The appropriators have gotten into the business of the authorizing committees in a way that is a violation of every procedure and process this Senate is supposed to be pursuing.

I believe Senator Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, will be as outraged as I am. I believe the chairperson of the Intelligence Committee will be as angry as I am. This is a fundamental function of government that has to do with national security and it is hidden in a provision, in a secret provision of the mammoth appropriations bill. I say to the distinguished chairperson and ranking member, that is not their business.

Some of us have been speaking out for more than a year about the terrorist attack of September 11, 2012, which took the lives of four American public servants in Benghazi, Libya, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. We have spoken out because of the many questions that still remain unanswered to this day.

We have spoken out and will continue to speak out despite efforts of partisans and proxies of the administration to sweep all of this under the rug. The latest snow job came in December, from the New York Times, that ever-reliable surrogate of the Obama administration, which published a long report challenging some key facts about the Benghazi attack. But as Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts. The facts are stubborn. In reality, what the Times report does is propagate myths. Let's review some of the facts.

The Times claims the following:

Months of investigation . . . centered on interviews with

Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack

there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or

other international terrorist groups had any role in the

assault.

The Times goes on to claim:

Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al-Qaeda. . . .

Here are the facts. Al Qaeda-affiliated groups were present in Benghazi, and they were involved in the attack of September 11, 2012. The New York Times itself reported on October 12:

American officials said [the attack] included participants

from Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and

the Muhammad Jamal network, a militant group in Egypt.

All of these groups are affiliated with Al Qaeda. The New York Times claims:

Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local

extremist organizations, like Ansar al-Shariah with Al

Qaeda's international terrorist network.

Again, here are the facts. In an interview yesterday with CNN, the Senator from California acknowledged correctly that Ansar al-Shariah, which played a major role in the attack, is linked to Al Qaeda. We are drawing on the work of our Intelligence Committee which yesterday released its report on the Benghazi attack and its aftermath.

In that report you will find numerous references by the intelligence community before the attack that make clear the nature of the Al Qaeda threat in Benghazi. The claims that Al Qaeda had not infiltrated Benghazi rests on the same rhetorical sleight-of-hand that holds that while groups may align themselves with Al Qaeda, may seek and receive direction from Al Qaeda, may share similar terrorist goals of Al Qaeda, and may even call themselves part of Al Qaeda, but if they are not sitting along the Pakistan-Afghan border or are not part of so-called core Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda senior leadership, then somehow they are not Al Qaeda.

This is the same bizarre language and logic that may have led then- Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice to claim just days after the attack that ``we have decimated Al Qaeda,'' this despite the fact that Al Qaeda-affiliated groups are proliferating and gaining traction all across the Middle East and North Africa, including in Benghazi.

The fact is that the attack against our diplomatic facility in Benghazi on September 11 was carried out in part by Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists who had a safe haven in parts of eastern Libya. As the Senate Intelligence Committee report finds, the Intelligence Committee provided ample strategic warning about the negative security trends in Benghazi and the likelihood they would further deteriorate. This was the opposite of an intelligence failure; this was clear as day.

Despite these clear warning signs, the State Department was unprepared. Our diplomatic facility in Benghazi was insecure and had already been attacked multiple times. Our military was not postured and ready to respond to contingencies in a part of Libya where attacks against westerners and western interests had already occurred and where the threat of more attacks was growing.

The false narrative the New York Times is furthering just so happens to align with the Obama administration's account of events, but, again, facts are stubborn, and the Senate Intelligence Committee report clearly supports the conclusion that the administration knew or should have known of the terrorist threat in Benghazi during the relevant period and should have pre-positioned assets or made other preparations to better protect our people serving there.

The administration and its allies will continue to try to sweep Benghazi under the rug--including the fact that we have still not received testimony and the presence of the individuals who were present and moved to Germany the day following the attack on the

Embassy and the deaths of four Americans.

Contrary to the President's repeated claim that the tide of war is receding and contrary to his administration's talking point that Al Qaeda has been decimated, the reality is that Al Qaeda-affiliated groups are emboldened now from central Asia to the Middle East and north Africa, all the way to west African countries such as Nigeria and Mali. Indeed, nothing brings this home more tragically than watching the black flags of Al Qaeda hoisted over the Iraq city of Fallujah. Ninety-five brave soldiers and Americans died in Fallujah, 600 were wounded, and today we see the black flags of Al Qaeda hoisted over the city of Fallujah. The problem is getting worse, and that is in large part due to this administration's disengagement from these regions.

Look at Libya today. It is a country that we and our NATO allies intervened to save from the wrath of an anti-American tyrant, and it is now characterized by chaos, lawlessness, and ungoverned spaces that are exploited by those who seek to do harm to our Nation and our interests. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, 15 Libyans who cooperated with our investigation into the Benghazi attack have been murdered.

The administration can blame the Libyans for these problems, just as they blame the Iraqis for Iraq's problems, but they can't escape their share of the blame for failing to support these people who want and need our help to secure their countries. That is why Chris Stevens was in Benghazi. That is why he risked and ultimately gave his life. He believed it was in our interest to lead events in the world and support our friends and those who wish to be our friends in their effort to build stable, successful societies with effective democratic governments. The greatest way we can honor his sacrifice, and those of his colleagues, is by recommitting ourselves to their mission.

Unless America actively supports those in the broader Middle East who wish to replace despair and extremism with hope and freedom, I fear the tide of war will eventually get us again.

I note that my colleague the Senator from New Hampshire is on the floor, and I would ask her and my colleague from South Carolina, is it not true that in this Intelligence Committee report, which is very encompassing, except for one mention in the minority views, there is no individual who is held responsible? So now we have a situation where bureaucracies are responsible but individuals are not. I find that intriguing.

Also, my friend from South Carolina has been trying to interview witnesses for a number of months, if not years, who were at the scene of the attack and then moved to Germany the following day. Isn't it true that we have never been able to interview those witnesses, which could have cleared up any arguments or any doubt about what the attack was all about?

I think a lot of people who are observers really have to view this and the actions on the part of the administration--the statement by now-National Security Adviser Susan Rice on every Sunday talk show was that this was the result of a hateful video, a spontaneous demonstration, and that Al Qaeda has been decimated. We can only view that and some of these actions in the context of the fact that it was a political campaign. There was a Presidential campaign going on, and the rhetoric time after time and rally after rally from the President of the United States and his surrogates was this: Bin Laden is dead. Al Qaeda is on the run. The tide of war is receding.

All of these events that took place at the consulate in Benghazi and the death of Christopher Stevens contradicted that storyline. Still, I cannot understand why 2 weeks later the President of the United States was before the United Nations and still talking about how this was due to a spontaneous demonstration and hateful video. You can only understand that, in my view, it was in the context of a storyline that was propagated throughout the 2012 Presidential campaign.

Regarding Iraq, we called for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense because of the failures in Iraq.

Another question for my colleagues: The attack went on for a period of some nine hours, as I recall. Over that period of time, with the hundreds of airplanes, aircraft that we have and the ships and other military capabilities we have in the area, in the Mediterranean, we were not able to get any real significant help. There are a number of accounts of where a team supposedly landed, were held at the airport, were not allowed to move in, and all of that. All of these are questions that have not been answered.

General Ham told the Senator from South Carolina and me over the phone that he didn't have any assets that were capable of reaching Benghazi. Does he mean we don't have the capability over an 8- or 9- hour period to get some relief to an ongoing attack? Again, what was the hangup that kept people at the airport who finally did get there?

We still don't know what the President did that evening.

The fact is no one, no one to this day has been held responsible for the tragic deaths of four brave Americans--no one. The Intelligence Committee report I appreciate. The whole bureaucracy is responsible. Individuals are the ones that run bureaucracies.

I am disappointed that the Intelligence Committee did not have the courage to name the names of the people responsible.

I yield the floor.

I thank the chairwoman. I was awaiting the arrival of my colleague from Virginia, who was going to speak first.

I thank the Senator from Maryland. I hope the Presiding Officer will chastise the Senator from Virginia for being tardy. I know he is very capable of that. So I will go ahead and begin, although I had planned on the Senator from Virginia being first. He is the sponsor of the bill which I am cosponsoring. I thank the chairwoman.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. McCain and Mr. Kaine pertaining to the introduction of S. 1939 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I thank Senate Armed Services Chairman Levin for working with me to clarify language in the consolidated appropriations bill of 2014 that directly contravenes section 2822 of the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. To date, Congress has not received sufficient cost-analysis supporting the Department of

Defense's proposed movement of troops from Okinawa to Guam. For this reason, in the authorization bill, the Armed Services Committees explicitly prohibited any premature investments in Guam until the Secretary of Defense provides Congress with, among other things, a report on military resources necessary to execute the U.S. force posture strategy in the Asia-Pacific region.

I also appreciate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Durbin for agreeing that the reporting requirements in section 2822 of the NDAA must be satisfied before the Department of Defense can obligate funds for investments in Guam if the report finds they are needed. In furtherance of these requirements, I fully expect the Senate Armed Services Committee will provide close and careful oversight over the use of any monies that may be appropriated for the transfer of forces covered in this section and obligated by the Department for that purpose and, specifically, hold hearings to determine the extent to which any plan to realign forces from Okinawa to Guam will sufficiently support our operational requirements in the Asia-Pacific region.

Mr. President, today I come to the floor to discuss the consolidated appropriations bill of 2014, upon which we will soon be voting. While I am pleased that this bill will prevent another government shutdown and hopefully signal to the American people that we can actually work together, I will not be voting for this bill due to serious concerns surrounding specific policy riders and spending provisions. I am also seriously concerned about the process whereby we are passing a 1,582 page, $1.012 trillion spending bill that we received at 8 p.m. Monday night--giving us very limited time to time to carefully review or debate and no ability to amend.

Now, this is not a new occurrence in Congress. According to the Congressional Research Service, between 1977 and 2013, there were only 4 years when all appropriations were enacted on time--fiscal year 1977, fiscal year 1989, fiscal year 1995, and fiscal year 1997: ``[O]ver half of the regular appropriations bills for a fiscal year were enacted on time in only one instance (1978). In all other fiscal years, fewer than six regular appropriations acts were enacted on or before October 1. In addition, in 12 out of the 37 years during this period, none of these regular appropriations bills were enacted prior to the start of the fiscal year.'' This is unacceptable and must change.

With our country facing a rapidly growing $17.3 trillion debt, which amounts to more than $54,000 per citizen, it is time for Congress to go back to the ``regular order'' and consider each one of the 12 individual appropriations bills in turn to fund the activities of our government before the end of the fiscal year, with ample time for debate and amendments, instead of ramming through a massive 1,582-page Omnibus appropriation bills like the one before us today. The American taxpayer expects more and deserves better than what we are giving them in this bill.

The Omnibus includes appropriations policy riders and pork barrel projects that should raise red flags for all of my colleagues. For example, tucked away in the classified portion of this bill is a policy rider that has serious national security implications and is a prime example of the appropriators overstepping their bounds. This provision will halt the transfer of the U.S. drone counterterrorism operations from the CIA to the Department of Defense. In doing so, it summarily changes a very important policy that guides how we do certain counterterrorism operations abroad from a direction that the President has specifically prescribed. And how did most of us become aware of this major policy change? By reading this morning's Washington Post; that is how. This is outrageous, and it should not have happened. While there may be differing opinions on who should control drone counterterrorism operations, we should be able to debate these differences in the committees of jurisdiction and eventually on the Senate floor. The fact that a major national security policy decision is going to be authorized in this bill without debate or authorization is unacceptable and should not be the way we legislate on such important national security issues.

The $1 trillion Omnibus also includes a wasteful provision directing the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, to continue developing the duplicative Catfish Inspection Office--even though the FDA has a similar inspection office. According to the Government Accountability Office, GAO, this duplicative office will cost taxpayers roughly $15 million a year once up and running. Both the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, and GAO have recommended that Congress repeal the catfish program because it is ``wasteful and duplicative'' of FDA's seafood inspection services.

The fact remains that the Catfish Office won't improve food safety. Its true purpose is to ban catfish imports for several years while USDA bureaucrats iron out their procedures with foreign inspectors. A New York Times article from November 2013 explains how this program would disrupt our trade relations with Asian countries. Some nations, including Vietnam, have threatened WTO retaliation against our agriculture exports, like beef and soybeans.

During the Senate debate on the farm bill, I was joined by Senator Shaheen and 11 other Senators in offering an amendment to that bill that would have eliminated the Catfish Office, but the managers blocked a vote on our amendment. The House version of the farm bill includes an amendment to eliminate the USDA Catfish Office, but Senate conferees are, likewise, blocking a vote in conference. I urge the Senate conferees to the farm bill to drop their opposition and allow a vote in conference on this important provision. Appropriators should have not included this policy rider in the omnibus. Instead, we should move to eliminate the duplicative and wasteful USDA Catfish Office.

In addition, the Omnibus bill includes $120 million in unrequested funding for Guam in direct contravention of the bicameral decisions of the Armed Services Committees. There is absolutely no justification for this. That is why the Armed Services Committees have expressly prohibited such funding in the NDAA. To date, Congress has not received sufficient cost-analysis supporting the Department of Defense's proposed movement of troops from Okinawa to Guam. For this reason, in the authorization bill passed just last month, the Armed Services Committees explicitly prohibited any premature investments in Guam until the Secretary of Defense provides Congress with the strategic plan which includes, among other things, costs associated with the movement to Guam and a report on military resources necessary to execute the U.S. force posture strategy in the Asia-Pacific region.

While this language will stay in the Omnibus bill due to the inability to offer an amendment to strip it, I am thankful to Senate Armed Services Chairman Levin for working with me to clarify the language. I also appreciate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Durbin and Vice Chairman Cochran for agreeing that the reporting requirements in section 2822 of the NDAA must be satisfied before the Department of Defense can obligate funds for investments in Guam if the report finds they are needed. I fully expect the Senate Armed Services Committee will provide close and careful oversight, including hearings, over the use of any monies that may be appropriated for the transfer of forces covered in this section and obligated by the Department for that purpose.

Yet another example of the abuse of the appropriations process is the continued inclusion of a misguided policy rider that prohibits the Postal Service from moving to 5-day mail delivery, which would save the Postal Service $2

billion a year. This congressional mandate was initially put in place in 1984 and is the only roadblock keeping the Postal Service from transforming the way it delivers mail, while still being able to provide universal service. The Postal Service continues to lose billions of dollars each year; however, some in Congress have decided that they know better than the Postal Service leadership and continue to prohibit the Postal Service from modernizing and transforming the way it does business. Congress must accept the fact that the Postal Service's current way of doing business is no longer viable. The American public communicates and conducts business in a completely different way than they did even 5 years ago. We must allow the Postal Service to adapt to changing times in order to have a Postal Service in the future, and this includes 5-day mail delivery to save $2 billion a year.

In addition to these unacceptable policy riders, the bill also includes other examples of pork barrel spending for programs, some duplicative, such as $65 million for Pacific Coast salmon restoration for States including Nevada, a program that even President Obama has called duplicative and mocked in his 2011 State of the Union Address; $80 million in additional funding for Amtrak, which continues to operate in the red year after year; $15 million for an ``incentive program'' that directs DOD to overpay on contracts by an additional 5 percent if the contractor is a Native Hawaiian-owned company.

There is language that makes it easier for the DOD to enter into no- bid contracts for studies, analysis, and unsolicited proposals. The language in the bill makes it ripe for wasteful spending and earmarks for pet projects. For example, Department of Defense may eliminate competition and use a no-bid contract for a ``product of original thinking and was submitted in confidence by one source.'' With the Department facing cuts now and into the future, this type of vague language could lead to costly wasteful spending on programs that DOD neither needs or can afford.

There are $600,000 for a program at Mississippi State University to research how to grow trees faster for replanting after hurricanes.

There are numerous ``Buy America'' provisions that hurt competition and innovation, drive up the costs of procurement, and further increases the taxpayer burden; $10 million for the USDA High Energy Cost Grants Program that go to subsidize electricity bills in Alaska and Hawaii; $10 million for a DOD Youth Challenge Program that was neither requested by the President nor authorized to receive funding in the fiscal year 2014 NDAA; and $3.3 million increase in the STARBASE Program. According to the Internet, this ``nice-to-have'' but not ``necessary-to-have'' program ``focuses on elementary students, primarily fifth graders. The program's goal is to motivate these students to explore Science, Technology, Engineering and Math, STEM, as they continue their education. Military volunteers apply abstract principles to real-world situations by leading tours and giving lectures on the use of STEM in different settings and careers.'' With a war going on and budget crisis at our doorstep, this is how we elect to spend our increasingly scarce defense dollars? We should leave the education of our children to our teachers and parents and not our military.

There is a $7.7 million increase for the Civil Air Program, or CAP. CAP is a volunteer organization that provides aerospace education to young people, runs a junior cadet program, and assists when possible in providing emergency services. Its members are hard-working and we are grateful for their volunteerism. This year, as in the past, the Senate Armed Services Committee authorized CAP funding. However, CAP is auxiliary and thus should not be funded given the need for the military to tighten its purse strings and fund programs that are a priority to our national defense, not auxiliary.

The bill also includes $375 million for Army, Navy, and Air Force ``alternative energy research'' initiatives. As I have stated in the past, this type of research has yielded such shining examples as the Department of the Navy's purchase of 450,000 gallons of alternative fuels for $12 million--over 26 dollars per gallon.

There is over $460 million in funding for Defense Department to do research dealing with research for alzheimer, autism, prostate and ovarian cancer, HIV/AIDS and numerous other diseases and illnesses. While this type of research is important, it should not be funded by Department of Defense. It should, instead, be funded by the National Institutes of Health, the budget of which this bill more than doubles over last year's.

We cannot continue this process where massive, unamendable, thousand- plus page spending bills totaling trillions of dollars are voted on 2 days after being made available to Members of this body. No Senator could have read and fully understood the long-term impact the policy and spending provisions this bill will have on the future of this Nation. It is a shameful way to do business. The American taxpayers are tired of Washington and our uncontrollable spending habits as well as our inability to cut wasteful, underperforming, and duplicative programs. Furthermore, our refusal to reform our broken tax system and our unsustainable mandatory programs have contributed greatly not only to the current fiscal crisis in our country, but to Americans' unfavorable opinion of the institutions of our government. We must change course and have a fair and open process to fund the Federal Government, not a closed process. For all of these reasons, I will not be voting for this appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague, the junior Senator from Virginia, as we introduce the War Powers Consultation Act of 2014.

This legislation is the final product of the National War Powers Commission, which was a bipartisan effort co-led by former Secretary of State Jim Baker and former Secretary of State Warren Christopher. The commission was set up by the Miller Center at the University of Virginia to devise a modern and workable war powers consultation mechanism for the executive and legislative branches. It included some of our Nation's most distinguished and respected thinkers and practitioners of national security policy and law. In 2008, after more than a year of hard work, the commission released the final product--an actual legislative proposal to repeal and replace the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which no American President has ever accepted as constitutional.

As does my colleague, I view our introduction of this legislation today as the start of an important congressional and national debate, not the final word in that debate. We wish to pick up where the National War Powers Commission left off 6 years ago, and we do so fully understanding and hopeful that this legislation should be considered and debated and amended and improved through regular order.

My colleague from Virginia has done a great job on this legislation, and I am proud to join him. I wish to expand a bit on why updating the War Powers Resolution is such a worthwhile endeavor for the Senate to consider right now.

The Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress, but Congress has not formally declared war since June of 1942 even though our Nation has been involved in dozens of military actions of one scale or another since that time. There is a reason for this. The nature of war is changing. It is increasingly unlikely that the combat operations our Nation will be involved in will resemble those of World War II, where the standing armies and navies of nation states squared off against those of rival nation states on clearly defined fields of battle. Rather, the conflicts in which increasingly we find ourselves and for which we must prepare will be murkier, harder to reconcile with the traditional notions of warfare; they may be more limited in their objectives, their scope, and their duration; and they likely will not conclude with a formal surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship.

The challenge for all of us serving in Congress is this: How do we reconcile the changing nature of war with Congress's proper role in the declaration of war? It is not exactly a new question, but it is a profound one, for unless we in Congress are prepared to cede our constitutional authority over matters of war to the executive, we need a more workable arrangement for consultation and decisionmaking between the executive and legislative branches.

We have seen several manifestations of this challenge in recent years. In 2011 President Obama committed U.S. military forces to combat operations in Libya to protect civilian populations from imminent slaughter by a brutal, anti-American tyrant. I, for one, believe he was right to do so. But 6 months later, when our armed services were still involved in kinetic actions in Libya--not just supporting our NATO allies but conducting air-to-ground operations and targeted strikes from armed, unmanned aerial vehicles--the administration claimed, as other administrations would, that it had no obligations to Congress under the War Powers Resolution because our Armed Forces were not involved in combat operations. That struck many Members of Congress, including me, as fundamentally at odds with reality, and unfortunately it pushed more Members of Congress into opposition against the mission itself.

More recently, we saw the opposite problem manifested with regard to Syria. Perhaps due to the backlash in Congress that the administration's handling of the Libya conflict engendered, President Obama decided to seek congressional authorization for limited airstrikes against the Assad regime after it slaughtered more than 1,400 of its own citizens with chemical weapons last August. An operation that likely would have lasted a few days and thus been fully consistent with the President's authority under the existing War Powers Resolution had he decided to act decisively and take limited military action instead devolved into a stinging legislative repudiation of executive action. The tragic result was that the Assad regime was spared any meaningful consequences for its use of a weapon of mass destruction against innocent men, women, and children, and, as with Libya, the forces that want to turn America away from the world were not checked but empowered.

Some of us may see the problem in these two instances as a failure of Presidential leadership, and I would agree, but I also believe the examples of Libya and Syria represent the broader problem we as a nation face: What is the proper war power authority of the executive and legislative branches when it comes to limited conflicts, which are increasingly the kinds of conflicts with which we are faced?

It is essential for the Congress and the President to work together to define a new war powers consultative agreement that reflects the nature of conflict in the 21st century and is in line with our Constitution. Our Nation does not have 535 commanders in chief. We have one--the President--and that role as established by our Constitution

must be respected. Our Nation is poorly served when Members of Congress try to micromanage the Commander in Chief in matters of war.

At the same time, now more than ever, we need to create a broader and more durable national consensus on foreign policy and national security, especially when it comes to matters of war and armed conflict. We need to find ways to make internationalist policies more politically sustainable.

After the September 11 attack, we embarked on an expansive foreign policy. Spending on defense and foreign assistance went up, and energy shifted to the executive. Now things are changing. Americans want to pull back from the world. Our foreign assistance and defense budgets are declining. The desire to curb Presidential power across the board is growing, and the political momentum is shifting toward the Congress. America has gone through this kind of political rebalancing before, and much of the time we have gotten it wrong. That is how we got isolationism and disarmament after World War I, that is how we got a hollow army after Vietnam, and that is how we weakened our national security after the Cold War in the misplaced hope of cashing in on a peace dividend. We can't afford to repeat these mistakes.

A new war powers resolution--one that is recognized as both constitutional and workable in practice--can be an important contribution to this effort. It can more effectively invest in the Congress the critical decisions that impact our national security. It can help build a more durable consensus in favor of the kinds of policies we need to sustain our global leadership and protect our Nation. In short, the legislation we are introducing today can restore a better balance to the way national security decisionmaking should work in a great democracy such as ours.

Let me say again. Neither the Senator from Virginia nor I believe the legislation we are introducing today answers all of the monumental and difficult questions surrounding the issue of war powers. We believe this is a matter of transcendent importance to our Nation, and we as a deliberative body of our government should debate this issue, and we look forward to that debate. This legislation should be seen as a way of starting that discussion both here in the Congress and across our Nation. We owe that to ourselves and our constituents. Most of all, we owe that to the brave men and women who serve our Nation in uniform and are called to risk their lives in harm's way for the sake of our Nation's national defense.

Before I yield to my tardy colleague from Virginia, I wish to mention again another reason why I think this legislation should be the beginning of a serious debate which we should bring to some conclusion. The fact is that no President of the United States has recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. That is a problem in itself. That is a perversion, frankly, of the Constitution of the United States of America. That is one reason, but the most important reason is that I believe we are living in incredibly dangerous times. When we look across the Middle East, when we look at Asia and the rise in the tensions in that part of the world and we look at the conflicts that are becoming regional--and whose fault they are is a subject for another debate and discussion, but the fact is that we are in the path of some kind of conflict in which--whether the United States of America wants to or not--we may have to be involved in some ways.

We still have vital national security interests in the Middle East. It is evolving into a chaotic situation, and one can look from the Mediterranean all the way to the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Aqaba, and throughout the region. So I believe the likelihood of us being involved in some way or another in some conflict is greater than it has been since the end of the Cold War, and I believe the American people deserve legislation and a clear definition of the responsibilities of the Congress of the United States and that of the President of the United States.

Again, I thank my colleague from Virginia, whose idea this is, who took a great proposal that was developed at the University of Virginia and was kind enough to involve me in this effort. I thank him for it. I thank him for his very hard work on it, despite the fact that, as the Chair will recognize, he was late for this discussion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague, the junior Senator from Virginia, as we introduce the War Powers Consultation Act of 2014.

This legislation is the final product of the National War Powers Commission, which was a bipartisan effort co-led by former Secretary of State Jim Baker and former Secretary of State Warren Christopher. The commission was set up by the Miller Center at the University of Virginia to devise a modern and workable war powers consultation mechanism for the executive and legislative branches. It included some of our Nation's most distinguished and respected thinkers and practitioners of national security policy and law. In 2008, after more than a year of hard work, the commission released the final product--an actual legislative proposal to repeal and replace the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which no American President has ever accepted as constitutional.

As does my colleague, I view our introduction of this legislation today as the start of an important congressional and national debate, not the final word in that debate. We wish to pick up where the National War Powers Commission left off 6 years ago, and we do so fully understanding and hopeful that this legislation should be considered and debated and amended and improved through regular order.

My colleague from Virginia has done a great job on this legislation, and I am proud to join him. I wish to expand a bit on why updating the War Powers Resolution is such a worthwhile endeavor for the Senate to consider right now.

The Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress, but Congress has not formally declared war since June of 1942 even though our Nation has been involved in dozens of military actions of one scale or another since that time. There is a reason for this. The nature of war is changing. It is increasingly unlikely that the combat operations our Nation will be involved in will resemble those of World War II, where the standing armies and navies of nation states squared off against those of rival nation states on clearly defined fields of battle. Rather, the conflicts in which increasingly we find ourselves and for which we must prepare will be murkier, harder to reconcile with the traditional notions of warfare; they may be more limited in their objectives, their scope, and their duration; and they likely will not conclude with a formal surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship.

The challenge for all of us serving in Congress is this: How do we reconcile the changing nature of war with Congress's proper role in the declaration of war? It is not exactly a new question, but it is a profound one, for unless we in Congress are prepared to cede our constitutional authority over matters of war to the executive, we need a more workable arrangement for consultation and decisionmaking between the executive and legislative branches.

We have seen several manifestations of this challenge in recent years. In 2011 President Obama committed U.S. military forces to combat operations in Libya to protect civilian populations from imminent slaughter by a brutal, anti-American tyrant. I, for one, believe he was right to do so. But 6 months later, when our armed services were still involved in kinetic actions in Libya--not just supporting our NATO allies but conducting air-to-ground operations and targeted strikes from armed, unmanned aerial vehicles--the administration claimed, as other administrations would, that it had no obligations to Congress under the War Powers Resolution because our Armed Forces were not involved in combat operations. That struck many Members of Congress, including me, as fundamentally at odds with reality, and unfortunately it pushed more Members of Congress into opposition against the mission itself.

More recently, we saw the opposite problem manifested with regard to Syria. Perhaps due to the backlash in Congress that the administration's handling of the Libya conflict engendered, President Obama decided to seek congressional authorization for limited airstrikes against the Assad regime after it slaughtered more than 1,400 of its own citizens with chemical weapons last August. An operation that likely would have lasted a few days and thus been fully consistent with the President's authority under the existing War Powers Resolution had he decided to act decisively and take limited military action instead devolved into a stinging legislative repudiation of executive action. The tragic result was that the Assad regime was spared any meaningful consequences for its use of a weapon of mass destruction against innocent men, women, and children, and, as with Libya, the forces that want to turn America away from the world were not checked but empowered.

Some of us may see the problem in these two instances as a failure of Presidential leadership, and I would agree, but I also believe the examples of Libya and Syria represent the broader problem we as a nation face: What is the proper war power authority of the executive and legislative branches when it comes to limited conflicts, which are increasingly the kinds of conflicts with which we are faced?

It is essential for the Congress and the President to work together to define a new war powers consultative agreement that reflects the nature of conflict in the 21st century and is in line with our Constitution. Our Nation does not have 535 commanders in chief. We have one--the President--and that role as established by our Constitution

must be respected. Our Nation is poorly served when Members of Congress try to micromanage the Commander in Chief in matters of war.

At the same time, now more than ever, we need to create a broader and more durable national consensus on foreign policy and national security, especially when it comes to matters of war and armed conflict. We need to find ways to make internationalist policies more politically sustainable.

After the September 11 attack, we embarked on an expansive foreign policy. Spending on defense and foreign assistance went up, and energy shifted to the executive. Now things are changing. Americans want to pull back from the world. Our foreign assistance and defense budgets are declining. The desire to curb Presidential power across the board is growing, and the political momentum is shifting toward the Congress. America has gone through this kind of political rebalancing before, and much of the time we have gotten it wrong. That is how we got isolationism and disarmament after World War I, that is how we got a hollow army after Vietnam, and that is how we weakened our national security after the Cold War in the misplaced hope of cashing in on a peace dividend. We can't afford to repeat these mistakes.

A new war powers resolution--one that is recognized as both constitutional and workable in practice--can be an important contribution to this effort. It can more effectively invest in the Congress the critical decisions that impact our national security. It can help build a more durable consensus in favor of the kinds of policies we need to sustain our global leadership and protect our Nation. In short, the legislation we are introducing today can restore a better balance to the way national security decisionmaking should work in a great democracy such as ours.

Let me say again. Neither the Senator from Virginia nor I believe the legislation we are introducing today answers all of the monumental and difficult questions surrounding the issue of war powers. We believe this is a matter of transcendent importance to our Nation, and we as a deliberative body of our government should debate this issue, and we look forward to that debate. This legislation should be seen as a way of starting that discussion both here in the Congress and across our Nation. We owe that to ourselves and our constituents. Most of all, we owe that to the brave men and women who serve our Nation in uniform and are called to risk their lives in harm's way for the sake of our Nation's national defense.

Before I yield to my tardy colleague from Virginia, I wish to mention again another reason why I think this legislation should be the beginning of a serious debate which we should bring to some conclusion. The fact is that no President of the United States has recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. That is a problem in itself. That is a perversion, frankly, of the Constitution of the United States of America. That is one reason, but the most important reason is that I believe we are living in incredibly dangerous times. When we look across the Middle East, when we look at Asia and the rise in the tensions in that part of the world and we look at the conflicts that are becoming regional--and whose fault they are is a subject for another debate and discussion, but the fact is that we are in the path of some kind of conflict in which--whether the United States of America wants to or not--we may have to be involved in some ways.

We still have vital national security interests in the Middle East. It is evolving into a chaotic situation, and one can look from the Mediterranean all the way to the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Aqaba, and throughout the region. So I believe the likelihood of us being involved in some way or another in some conflict is greater than it has been since the end of the Cold War, and I believe the American people deserve legislation and a clear definition of the responsibilities of the Congress of the United States and that of the President of the United States.

Again, I thank my colleague from Virginia, whose idea this is, who took a great proposal that was developed at the University of Virginia and was kind enough to involve me in this effort. I thank him for it. I thank him for his very hard work on it, despite the fact that, as the Chair will recognize, he was late for this discussion.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

My colleague from South Carolina will join me shortly on the floor, but I will make some remarks while I am waiting.

When the Senator from South Carolina joins me, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.

Some of us were in the Senate 10 years ago in 2004 when U.S. troops led two major offensives against Al Qaeda and other militants in the Iraqi city of Fallujah. Some of us remember how 146 of our brave men and women in uniform lost their lives and more than 1,000 were wounded. Those fights were some of the bloodiest and toughest battles since the Vietnam war. Success was costly, but success we had. Ten years later, Al Qaeda fighters have once again raised their black flags over Fallujah, and they are battling to control other parts of Iraq.

This tragic setback is leaving many of our brave Iraq war veterans-- and especially those who shed their blood, risked their lives, and lost their friends in fighting against Fallujah--questioning what their sacrifice was worth. Sadly, they find themselves agreeing with Congressman Duncan Hunter, a former marine who fought in Fallujah.

He said:

We did our job. We did what we were asked to do, and we

won. Every single man and woman who fought in Iraq, and

especially in those cities, feels a kick in the gut for all

they did, because this President decided to squander their

sacrifice.

Prior to 2011, President Obama frequently referred to a responsible withdrawal from Iraq, which was based on leaving behind a stable and representative government in Baghdad and avoiding a power vacuum that terrorists could exploit.

The President's Deputy National Security Adviser Antony Blinken in 2012--and I am not making this up--stated that ``Iraq today is less violent, more democratic, and more prosperous . . . than any other time in history.''

Based on the President's own markers, the administration is falling short of its own goals. The illusion of a stable and representative government has been shattered by increasing sectarian tension, and it is clear terrorists are exploiting the power vacuum left behind.

The Obama administration blames Iraqis for failing to grant the necessary privileges and immunities for a U.S. force presence beyond 2011. This is misleading--in fact, false--because as we saw firsthand, the administration never took the necessary diplomatic effort to reach such an agreement.

The Senator from South Carolina and I traveled to Iraq in May 2011, only several months away from the deadline that our commanders had set for the beginning of the withdrawal. We met with all the leaders of Iraq's main political blocs and we heard a common message during all of these private conversations: Iraqi leaders recognized it was in their country's interest to maintain a limited number of U.S. troops to continue training and assisting Iraqi security forces beyond 2011.

But when we asked Ambassador Jeffrey and the Commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq Lloyd Austin, while in a meeting with Prime Minister Maliki, how many U.S. troops remaining in Iraq would perform and how many the administration sought to maintain, they couldn't tell us or the Iraqis. The White House still had not made a decision.

It went on like this for the next few months. By August 2011, leaders of Iraq's main political blocs joined together and stated they were prepared to enter negotiations to keep some U.S. troops in Iraq. An entire month passed and still the White House made no decision. All the while, during this internal deliberation, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff GEN Martin Dempsey later testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the size of a potential U.S. force presence kept cascading down from upwards of 16,000 to an eventual low of less than 3,000. By that point, the force would be able to do little other than protect itself, and Prime Minister Maliki and other Iraqi leaders realized the political cost of accepting this proposal was not worth the benefit.

To blame this failure entirely on the Iraqis is convenient, but it misses the real point. The reason to keep around 10,000 to 15,000 U.S. forces in Iraq was not for the sake of Iraq alone. It was first and foremost in our national security interest to continue training and advising Iraqi forces and to maintain greater U.S. influence in Iraq. That core principle should have driven a very different U.S. approach to the SOFA--the status of forces agreement--diplomacy.

The Obama administration should have recognized that after years of brutal conflict, Iraqi leaders still lacked trust in one another, and a strong U.S. role was required to help Iraqis broker their most politically sensitive decisions. For this reason the administration should have determined what tasks and troop numbers were in the national interest to maintain in Iraq and done so with ample time to engage with Iraqis at the highest level of the U.S. Government to shape political conditions in Baghdad to achieve our goal.

We focus on this failure not because U.S. troops would have made a decisive difference in Iraq by engaging in unilateral combat operations against Al Qaeda and other threats to Iraq's stability. By 2011, U.S. forces were no longer in Iraqi cities or engaged in security operations. However, residual U.S. troop presence could have assisted Iraqi forces in their continued fight against Al Qaeda, it could have provided a platform for greater diplomatic engagement and intelligence cooperation with our Iraqi partners, it could have made Iranian leaders think twice about using Iraqi airspace to transit military assistance and weapons and arms and equipment to Assad and his forces in Syria and, most importantly, it could have maintained the significant diplomatic influence the United States at that time possessed in Iraq-- influence that had been and still was essential in guaranteeing Iraq's nascent political system, reassuring Iraqi leaders they could resolve their differences peacefully and politically, despite their mistrust of one another, and checking the authoritarian and sectarian tendencies of Prime Minister Maliki and his allies.

The administration's failure in Iraq has been further compounded by its

failure in Syria. In Syria, where President Obama has refused to take any meaningful action, the initially peaceful protests of early 2011 were met by horrific violence by the Assad regime.

This President and this administration have stood back and watched while over 130,000 people have been brutally killed and a fourth of the population displaced. In his promise to avoid military action and reduce the U.S. footprint in the Middle East, we have seen the resurgence of Al Qaeda throughout the region, Hezbollah and Iran emboldened in Syria, Russia reasserting its principal presence for the first time since it was kicked out of Egypt by Egyptian President Sadat in 1973, and the destabilization of the region in ways that will inevitably reverberate here in America.

Again, there are those who may applaud President Obama's decision to disengage, arguing this isn't America's problem to solve. That the United States is fundamentally limited in its ability to influence developments in the Middle East is a consistent theme within the administration. No one denies there are limits to what the United States can do. That is always the case. But as Secretary Hillary Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as she was leaving office:

Let me underscore the importance of the United States

continuing to lead in the Middle East, North Africa and

around the world. When America is absent, especially from

unstable environments, there are consequences. Extremism

takes root, our interests suffer, and our security at home is

threatened.

Nowhere do her words ring more true than in Syria and Iraq today, begging the question that by fleeing Iraq and sidestepping Syria has the administration helped empower terrorist forces in ways that have created long-term threats to U.S. national security? I am afraid it is hard to argue the answer is no.

The administration must recognize its failed policies and change its course. America has lost credibility and influence over the past years, and we simply can't afford to remain disengaged. It is time that America stands and take its rightful role in resolving these conflicts to best serve American interests. It is time we adopt a comprehensive strategy for addressing the growing threats that are now emanating from the region and move forward from a position of strength. A return of Al Qaeda to Anbar Province is a sobering reminder for the administration that the tide of war is not receding.

I see my colleague from South Carolina is here. I am sorry I didn't realize he had come to the floor. I know the Senator from South Carolina and I need to discuss a recent unfortunate development in Afghanistan, but before we do, could I recall for my friend from South Carolina the many visits--and I have lost count, but many visits--we made to Iraq from 2003 really up to 2012, and that one of the most interesting visits we had was when we were in Ramadi and Colonel MacFarland announced to us that the Sunni sheiks had come over--that the major sheik had come over, and he had sent some tanks over--and that was the beginning of what we know as the Anbar awakening--a turning point in the entire conflict. That, coupled with the surge, changed the fortunes of war in Iraq.

By the way, the surge was opposed vehemently by the President of the United States and the former Secretary of State, then Senator Clinton, who stated in a hearing with General Petraeus that she would have to have a ``willing suspension of disbelief in order to believe that the surge would succeed.''

But setting that aside, later, when we came back again to Fallujah and Ramadi, the Senator from South Carolina and I walked down the main street of Ramadi--down the main street--with Iraqis everywhere, proving the success of the surge in Anbar Province. Yet now, on the same streets we walked down--the exact same streets--there are now vehicles filled with Al Qaeda, flying the black flag of Al Qaeda.

The bloodiest war of the conflict that was fought during our entire involvement with Iraq was the second battle of Fallujah. There were 95 brave Americans killed and over 600 wounded. What do we tell these young people and their families? What do we tell them? I tell you what we have to tell them. We have to tell them their sacrifice was squandered by an administration that wanted out and didn't want to remain and consolidate the gains that were made through the sacrifice of American blood and treasure.

Could I ask the Senator again: One, Iraq and Syria now are in danger of becoming a base for Al Qaeda and movement back and forth between that area of Anbar Province, which obviously poses an enormous threat, because we know what the ultimate goal of Al Qaeda is.

Could I also recall for my friend from South Carolina the meeting we had with Maliki--after we had met with Allawi, after we had met with Barzani, the leader of the Kurds, who all agreed we would get together and endorse a U.S. troop presence to remain in Iraq. This administration refused--even after we came back and begged them to give us a number--refused to give the number, claiming it had to be endorsed by their Parliament, which was absolutely false.

But now we see Iranian aircraft overflying Iraq with weapons and arms for Bashar al-Assad. We see Anbar and that area of Syria and Iraq now becoming possibly a base for Al Qaeda to operate. We see the two major cities in Anbar, Ramadi, and Fallujah--where so much American blood was shed--now with vehicles driving around with the black flag of Al Qaeda on display.

I think it is important we make it clear. The Senator from South Carolina and I are not advocating sending combat troops back to Iraq. That is impossible. It may be an avenue, but it is impossible, and we are not advocating that. We are advocating that we give advice, send equipment, and we give them some capabilities. We help them with intelligence. There are certain places we can help them. But at the same time, now Prime Minister Maliki has to reach out to the Sunnis and get a reconciliation.

From the day U.S. troops left Iraq, Maliki began to persecute the Sunni. He even charged his own Vice President, who was a Sunni, with treason and the Vice President had to leave the country.

So if any of this is going to work, if we have any influence--and have no doubt who has the influence in Iraq today: Iran. But if we have any influence, we have to tell Maliki we want to help and we want to give him the kind of technical assistance he needs. But he has to reach out to the Sunni in the way that took place in the Anbar awakening back in 2008. Because without national reconciliation, all the equipment and all the assistance we can give the Iraqis will not help.

So I do blame Prime Minister Maliki. Responsibility lies with his behavior toward the Sunni, but we were not there to influence him. We were not there. It is not only the kind of assistance we could have provided them that they need, but it also is the influence issue. No expert on Iraq today will tell you we have anything but a minimal influence and Iran has that. If anybody thinks Al Qaeda's control of large portions of Iraq and Syria is not a threat to the United States of America, then they don't understand the nature of Al Qaeda.

I would argue, I say to the Senator from South Carolina, two names which spring to mind would be General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, probably the two most respected people in Iraq today. Maybe we are getting into too much detail, but I do agree with him on that.

I don't think there is any doubt, I would say to my friend from South Carolina, that this has become an almost safe operating area on both sides of the Syria-Iraq border for Al Qaeda.

It is interesting. There has been a little good news in the last day or two; that is, some of the more moderate forces in Syria have struck back at this radical Islamist group because of the incredible cruelty of al-Nusra and ISIS, which is the radical Islamic group both in Iraq and Syria. Interestingly enough, that is being accomplished without any U.S. help. Thank

God for the other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others which have been of assistance to these people. They have been driving out some of the more extremist element. We are working with the Russians to remove the chemical weapons.

In Syria today, Bashar al-Assad, from helicopters, is dropping these crude cluster bombs which are just shrapnel that kill anybody within lethal range. Since dropping it on populated areas, Bashar al-Assad has slaughtered innocent men, women, and children.

So here we are working with the Russians. Today there was a U.N. resolution from the Security Council condemning Bashar al-Assad's barbaric behavior. Guess who vetoed that. Our friends, the Russians. This is the most Orwellian situation in Iraq anybody has ever seen throughout history. Russians are working with us to remove chemical weapons from Syria and at the same time aircraft from Russia are landing full of weapons to kill Syrian men, women, and children. I am not sure a Syrian mother can differentiate between her child dying from a chemical weapon or dying from one of these cluster bombs that Bashar al-Assad is unloading from his helicopters.

So we have this grandiose idea the Secretary of State and the administration have been pushing for months and months to have a Geneva II. The first Geneva failed. Does anyone on God's green Earth believe that Bashar al-Assad, who is winning, is going to preside over his own transition from power? Of course not.

I will never forget--I am sure the Senator from South Carolina will never forget--the testimony of our now still Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Armed Services Committee: Bashar al-Assad inevitably will leave.

The President of the United States: Bashar al-Assad, it is not a matter of when, it is not a matter of whether he will leave but a matter of when.

Meanwhile, the weapons pour in from Iran; Hezbollah, 5,000 of them; 130,000 people slaughtered, and one-quarter of the population being slaughtered, while this administration not only sits by and does nothing but the President of the United States says nothing.

This will go down as one of the most shameful chapters in American history. If the policy of this administration is to only focus on counterterrorism, get out of the Middle East, and remove any involvement of the United States in the Middle East, I can assure my colleagues the Middle East will not allow the United States of America to not be involved.

Madam President, thank you for your patience.

We yield the floor.

Madam President, yesterday, the Senate voted to confirm Janet Yellen to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Regrettably, I was not in Washington and was not present for the vote. Had I been here, I would have voted no on this nomination. While Ms. Yellen may be well- qualified for this position, I do not support her nomination due to her support of monetary policies such as quantitative easing, QE, that have distorted the markets and artificially stimulated the economy. With interest rates at record lows, economic growth continues to be anemic and unemployment rates are higher than normal. During her confirmation hearing, Ms. Yellen admitted that there are ``costs and risks'' associated with the QE program but still signaled support. QE has done little more than increase uncertainty in our economy and opened the door for high interest rates in the future. The Federal Reserve must stop this ill-conceived,

wholly irresponsible approach and Congress and the administration must enact fiscally responsible policies that strengthen the middle class by creating jobs, growing the economy and cutting the red tape that continues to hamper the private sector.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I just watched again what is going on here on the floor of the Senate. Again there is a unanimous consent request to pass a major piece of legislation without an amendment, without debate, without the ability of those on this side of the aisle to even have an amendment considered and voted on, again completely shutting out this side of the aisle from the ability in any way to effect legislation.

So now I am sure those on the other side of the aisle are going to go out and say: Oh, the Republicans, look at them, they will not even agree to an extension of unemployment insurance.

Won't you let us have an amendment? Won't you let us at least have debate and vote on an amendment? There are some of us who think this program can be improved to help those who are unemployed. But, no, the way the Senate runs today it is either take it or leave it.

I will tell the Chair and I will tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we are getting sick and tired of it. We are getting sick and tired of the dictatorial way the U.S. Senate is being run.

The Senator from South Carolina and I are on the floor to talk about, among other things, the National Defense Authorization Act, the bill that has to do with this Nation's defense. Are we going to be able to have a single amendment? No. The bill has been out of the Senate Armed Services Committee since May.

So we are not going to address the issue of sexual assaults, protecting individual rights in light of revelations in NSA data collection. I would say to my colleagues, the President had a commission that just made some recommendations. Would it not be appropriate to take those commission recommendations, debate them here on the floor of the Senate, and amend the bill so that some of these recommendations by this commission could be enacted into law?

Do we believe that the issue of surveillance, of NSA data collection, is not an issue that should be debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate? We would be doing that--we would be debating, we would be amending, we would be making it better, we would be protecting the privacy of Americans' lives--if on this floor we were amending and debating the Defense authorization bill. But we are not. We are not.

Are we going to talk about this incredible issue which has permeated so much debate, both in and outside of the Congress of the United States, of sexual assaults in the military? No. Nope. We are not going to allow an amendment on the other side of the aisle by the Senator from New York, who has made it her major legislative effort. We are not going to hear from this side of the aisle, where the Senator from Missouri has made it her major issue. No, we are not going to debate it. We are not going to amend it.

What about the issue of detainees? The Senator from South Carolina and I are not in complete agreement. I had looked forward to a debate with him about how we dispose of the situation of detainees, each one of whom is costing a million and a half dollars per year for their incarceration.

But, no, we are not going to do any of that today or tomorrow or next week or next month or maybe even next year if the majority leader of the Senate continues to run the Senate in such a way that we cannot even have debate and discussion.

I will tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this is bad for the U.S. Senate, but it is worse for the American people. We have an obligation to the American people to debate issues, to vote on them, to pass legislation that we think is the best outcome. There would be votes I would lose, there would be votes I would win, but we are not going to have any votes.

The galling thing about it is that the Defense bill passed through the Senate Armed Services Committee in May. So we went to June, July, August, September, October, November, and here we are finally maybe going out for the year and we are going to have an up-or-down vote--an up-or-down vote--on the Defense authorization bill. That is shameful. That is a perversion of everything that the U.S. Senate was designed for by our Founding Fathers, and there is no doubt about it.

I came to the floor with my friend from South Carolina to talk about Iran sanctions. But have no doubt--have no doubt--I tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you are doing a great disservice to the American people, to the men and women who are serving this Nation, by not even fully debating and amending and voting on those amendments on this bill. You are doing a disservice to the men and women who are serving this Nation.

So you should not be proud of this process we are going through. Some time today or tomorrow, depending on how many hours go by, we will have a vote, and I will vote to pass the bill. I will vote that way because I cannot do this to the American people, to the men and women who are serving. There are too many provisions in it that address bonuses, special duty, incentive pay, military construction, security--all kinds of issues that are obtained in this bill. So we cannot turn it down, but we cannot make it a bill that the American people should be proud of. In fact, we should be embarrassed at the process we are engaged in.

Frankly, I know the American people are not too interested or aware of the arcane promises of the U.S. Senate, but steps were taken early and not that long ago that have changed the entire U.S. Senate, and it has changed it for the worse.

I can assure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that it will be very difficult--very, very difficult--for us to work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle on most any issue when we are being deprived of the fundamental rights of a U.S. Senator, and that is the right to propose an amendment, debate, and have a vote, if that U.S. Senator wishes it.

No longer are 45 Members on this side of the aisle allowed what should be our right--not a privilege, our right--to amend this legislation in order to

make it better and make it a better and more effective way to defend this Nation.

I have been around this body for a long time. This may be one of the lowest points I have seen, particularly in light of the fact that the Defense authorization bill for 51 years has been brought to the floor of the Senate, it has been debated, it has been amended, sometimes for as long as 3 weeks, and now what are we going to do? Sometime tonight or tomorrow, at some hour, we are going to have the privilege of voting yea or nay on a bill that is vital to our Nation's security. Disgraceful.

I see my colleague from South Carolina on the floor, and I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.

Madam President, I am sure my colleague and friend saw the article in the Wall Street Journal this morning that says ``France Doubts Iran Ready for Nuclear Pact. Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius Questions Whether Tehran Is Willing to Abandon the Ability to Build an Atomic Bomb.''

Really, in the first paragraph of this story--I would ask my colleague--is the fundamental problem. There are many issues concerning the Iranians lie, cheat for years and years about their continued progress toward the acquisition of a nuclear weapon. But I would ask my friend from South Carolina, isn't it really about the most important-- let me put it this way: The most important aspect of this whole issue of these negotiations is the right to enrich? In other words, will the Iranians--haven't we already given over to them the right to continue to have the centrifugal spin and the enrichment process continue so that at some point, sooner or later, they may be only the turn of a wrench away from a nuclear weapon?

May I say to my friend that one of the things that would happen right away--I think it is well known; it is not a secret--is that many nations in the region would then quickly acquire nuclear weapons. The wealthiest ones might just buy one from Pakistan. That is not a secret.

But could I ask my colleague this: So therefore we now have a period of 6 months which originally was stated as the end goal, that an agreement would be made and finalized and would be ready to be put into effect. But then we hear: Well, maybe it is going take more than 6 months.

One, haven't we seen that movie before--extended and protected negotiations, and then the centrifuges, as the Senator from South Carolina mentioned, continue to spin.

Also, wouldn't it be appropriate for the Congress to say to the administration--and, more importantly, to the Iranians--that after 6 months, my friends, the screws are going to tighten because if they cannot get an agreement in 6 months, then it would be appropriate for there to be additional pressures that would then hopefully be incentives for them to reach a final agreement rather than the status quo, which most of us believe is not satisfactory under this 6-month period.

Should there not be some sanctions that would kick in after a 6-month period, and then the Iranians would know that if they do not reach an agreement, then the sanctions will be more severe?

Perhaps my colleague can explain to me why the Secretary of State and the administration seem to be so opposed to us putting more pressure on the whole process to be finalized. Six months seems to be a reasonable length of time to get that done.

Well, I think it might. I think this whole perception of the United States around the world, of our weakness, whether it be manifested in the Middle East with recent--I am sure my friend from South Carolina saw the comments of the former high-ranking member of the Saudi Government. The Japanese are now starting to go their own way because they believe the American pivot is not reality. There are manifestations of this perception of American weakness all over the world. So I am not sure they believe we are serious here or most anyplace else.

The Senator from South Carolina raises an excellent point. I seem to remember that during the days of the Cold War we used to look at the reviewing stand on the May Day Parade, and we would point out one guy and say: Well, he is a moderate. He is a soft-liner. Well, he is a hard-liner. You know, we hope that--fill in the blank--is going to really have a beneficial effect and that the Russians are going to change and blah, blah, blah. There was always this belief about hard- liners and soft-liners. We know now from history that was never the case.

So now we look at Iran. Oh, there are the hard-liners and the soft- liners. Doesn't that ignore the fundamental fact that there is one man who governs Iran and makes all the decisions? That guy is the Ayatollah. Now that Ahmadinejad, the hard-liner--and Rouhani, by the way, as the Senator from South Carolina mentioned, bragged and bragged about how he deceived the Americans and the other countries when he was the negotiator for Iran. Now he is the moderate. Now he is the good guy. So all this is fraud.

But I guess the other point that I think really needs to be made that we forget is this: In Syria and in Iran--this administration, this President, and this Secretary of State look at these countries as an arms control issue. They look at Syria as an arms control issue while from helicopters they are dropping bombs that are killing and massacring women and children, while they are committing the most atrocious acts--on the one hand, the Secretary of State and his friend Sergei Lavrov are removing chemical weapons from Syria while planeloads of weapons from Russia fly into Damascus, and they kill people. I am not sure whether a mother in Syria can discriminate whether that child was killed by a chemical weapon or by a conventional weapon.

So here we have the Iranians committing acts of terror all over the world, sending the Iranian Revolutionary Guard into Syria, training Bashar Assad's troops in Iran and sending them back, sending in supply after supply of weapons to kill Syrians, plots to kill even the Saudi Arabia Ambassador here in Washington, DC. Yemen has tried to smuggle in a whole boatload of weapons from Iran. The list goes on and on of their Persian ambitions throughout the Arab world and the world, but, by golly, we trust them to sit down and negotiate with us seriously on the issue of nuclear weapons. This is the most narrow view of Iran that has ever happened in history.

So I do not see how we can judge Iranian seriousness about really wanting to rein in and eliminate their progress toward nuclear weapons without considering their behavior throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East, which is one of aggression, terror, and outright murder of people and destabilizing the entire region to the Iranian advantage.

True.

May I interrupt? I forgot one aspect of Iranian behavior that is the most egregious: their sponsorship of Hezbollah. There are 5,000 Hezbollah from Lebanon, sponsored by Iran, who are killing Syrians as we speak at the bidding of the Ayatollah and maybe Rouhani, who is supposed to be a moderate.

I would also point out, one, if we are looking for one bright spot, that we see countries in the gulf and the Middle East aligning with Israel in a way that we have never seen before. Shouldn't we listen to the Prime Minister of Israel, which is the first target of Iran? It is the country about which the Iranians said, and have not renounced, that it is their commitment to ``wiping Israel off the map.'' Does the Senator think that maybe relations between ourselves and Israel are at the lowest ebb?

Does the Senator think it is an accident when now the Saudis and leaders of other countries are outspoken in their derision of the United States for a lack of leadership in the Middle East?

Finally, isn't it interesting that the Russians, for the first time since 1973, when Anwar Sadat threw them out of Egypt, are now major players in the Middle East?

I think so.

I thank my colleagues for their forbearance. I agree with the Senator from South Carolina.

I think it is imperative for the Congress and our role in the U.S. Government that these sanctions be enacted. The administration has plenty of time to negotiate, but we want to be prepared for failure. There is no reason not to make those preparations.

I began our conversation with the comments of the foreign minister of France. That concern is shared by many of our friends and allies both in and out of the region.

I note the presence of the Senator from Mississippi on the floor. I am sure he has some very important words that will be translated into English.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

First, I want to thank Senator Levin and the Senator from Oklahoma for their leadership and hard work on this legislation, and I congratulate them on the great work they have done.

But could I ask the Senator from Michigan, is this the first time in 51 years that a defense authorization bill will be voted on without debate or any amendment?

Excuse me, without extended debate and addressing the issues of sexual assault, NSA, detainees. Have any of those issues been addressed by debate and amendment on the floor of the Senate?

Could I finally say to the Senator, I have never seen a process like this before. Maybe there have been some parallels, No. 1. No. 2, here we are on December 19 of 2013 and we passed a bill through the committee in May. So here we are, many months later, taking up a bill because the majority's priorities were obviously not to bring up the Defense authorization bill until it was so late we are forced into this cramped procedure.

There is no doubt--and I thank the Senator and my distinguished chairman--that we haven't debated this bill. We haven't debated NSA. We haven't debated this issue of sexual assaults, with two different opinions here, the sanctions, the detainee issue--all of those issues.

I remember in the markup we said we will wait. It is so important, we will wait and amend this on the floor. So I don't think we have done the men and women who are serving in the military anything but a gross disservice by, in December, having a bill rammed through the Senate, and that is because of a lack of priorities on the part of leadership. We could have taken this bill to the floor of the Senate in June and we didn't. What a shame.

Madam President, I ask if the chairperson of the Budget Committee will engage in a brief dialogue, colloquy.

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

Madam President, I would ask my friend, the chairperson of the Budget Committee, who has done extremely hard work on the budget agreement, is the Senator aware that under the Simpson-Bowles plan-- which was embraced by many, many Members of this body, including on this side, including on the other side, including those who have now announced their opposition to the agreement, the Ryan-Murray budget-- that the Simpson-Bowles plan recommends scrapping COLAs, cost-of-living adjustments, entirely? It not just cuts them, but the Simpson-Bowles plan--I wonder if the

chairperson knows--eliminates COLAs entirely for working age military retirees?

The Simpson-Bowles plan, which was so embraced and everybody thought was the greatest thing since sliced bread, said:

Defer Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for retirees in the

current system until age 62, including for civilian and

military retirees who retire well before a conventional

retirement age. In place of annual increases, provide a one-

time catch-up adjustment at age 62 to increase the benefit to

the amount that would have been payable had full COLAS been

in effect.

So basically what Simpson-Bowles recommended was scrapping the cost- of-living adjustment for working age military retirees. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the provision in the Senator's bill is a 1- percent reduction--far, far less than scrapping it entirely, as Simpson-Bowles recommended.

I would ask again, where was the outrage, to quote my old friend Bob Dole, where was the outrage when this provision in Simpson-Bowles was included, which would have scrapped it completely? It was not through the Armed Services Committee. It was the Simpson-Bowles plan, which was a commission. I would ask the distinguished chairperson.

Madam President, could I ask the chairperson, is it not true that what you have proposed is 1-percentage point for military retirees--to reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment by 1 percentage point for military retirees--which means, according to House Budget Committee staff: A person who enlisted at age 18 and retired at 38 as a sergeant first class in the Army would see approximately a 6- percent overall reduction in lifetime pay because of the COLA reduction; that is, that person would receive about $1.626 million in lifetime retirement pay instead of $1.734 million.

So that is as compared to what Simpson-Bowles envisioned: complete elimination, as opposed to this 1-percent reduction.

I would also ask, again, to the chairperson of the Budget Committee, is it not true that this cost-of-living adjustment reduction, the 1 percent, does not kick in until 2015, the end of 2015? And is it not true that Senator Levin, and I, and all others, have committed to reviewing this provision, with the outlook, at least in my view, to repealing it if necessary? But also there is a commission, supported by Members on both sides of the aisle, which looks at this entire issue of cost-of-living adjustments, of retirement, of TRICARE, of all of these issues because of the increasing costs of these benefits--in the words of Secretary Gates, former Secretary of Defense, who all of us admire so much--that are ``eating us alive.''

So again, the Simpson-Bowles plan, which was embraced almost unanimously on both sides of the aisle, eliminates the cost-of-living adjustments for any retirees during their working age. This plan, which is met with such outrage, is only a 1-percent reduction--by the way, I want revised as well--that they would receive $1.626 million instead of $1.734 million.

Finally, I would ask the distinguished chairperson, does she know of another plan, another idea, another legislative proposal that will prevent us from shutting down the government again--something I refuse to inflict on the citizens of my State? I refuse to disturb their lifestyles, to destroy their income, to shut down essential government services, the nightmare we just went through.

So I guess my question to the chairperson is, does the Senator know of another avenue between now and I believe it is January 15 when the government would be shut down again that we could pursue that would prevent another government shutdown?

I would further ask the chairperson if she has, as I have, heard from every single uniformed service leader of the four armed services, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that further effects of sequestration will do unsustainable damage to our national security, that the pain inflicted because of the way that sequestration acts in 2014, the really significant effects, are that we will destroy or certainly dramatically impact our ability to defend this Nation? Is that not the unanimous opinion of our uniformed service commanders to whom we give the responsibility to defend this Nation? I would ask the chairperson if she has heard from our military leadership in uniform as well on this entire proposal, particularly its effect from sequestration?

If I may ask the chairperson, in summary: One, there is no legislative proposal between now and January 15 that anyone sees that could pass both Houses of Congress and be signed by the President of the United States that would prevent another government shutdown on January 15. I would ask the chairman if that is true.

Second, is it not true that if we go through the sequestration again, particularly because of the nature of the sequester legislation, that there is a sharp drop in 2014, and then a sort of a restoration in following years? In other words, the worst year of the entire sequestration process would be next year, unless we soften the blow. Is it not true that nobody cares more about those who serve in the military than their uniformed leaders, and unanimously those uniformed leaders have said they support this legislation?

Is it not true that the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the Armed Services Committee, will have an entire year, because this legislation will not take effect--this cost-of-living adjustment will not take effect until January 15, 2015, so we have an entire year of authorization committee consideration of this particular provision?

Is it also not true that it is recognized by all members of the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee and the chairman of the Budget Committee that we have continued increases in costs and benefits forever because of our inability to fund our national security? In other words, the dramatic increase in personnel and benefit costs are such that we are not going to have money left over for the mission, the equipment, and the capabilities?

Is it also not true--I would ask again what the obvious is: The Simpson-Bowles plan, which was embraced wholeheartedly by many of us, including this Senator, by the way, said to defer cost-of-living adjustment for retirees in all--that is all cost-of-living

adjustments for retirees in the current system until age 62.

Is this far more draconian, what is envisioned in Simpson-Bowles, than what is before the body today? So is it hard to understand why someone would embrace Simpson-Bowles and yet find this provision as objectionable as it is? I find the provision objectionable, but I have confidence, and I hope the budget chairperson would agree, that it deserves the review and legislating, if it needs to be fixed, because the fact is that we have to look at the entire retirement and benefits that are now present in the military--for example, TRICARE, where there has not been an increase in premiums I believe since 1985, while the cost of health care has skyrocketed.

So, again, I would ask the chairman of the Budget Committee if that is true. If it is true, then does it not deserve some consideration for those who care, as I do and I know the chairperson does, about the men and women who are serving in the military, and should we not listen to our military leadership who literally are saying they cannot defend this Nation if this sequester continues, particularly in the fashion, the meat ax fashion, with which sequestration is now impacting our Nation's defense?

I thank the chairperson for her hard work. I believe most Americans are a bit surprised that there is any agreement. I believe the chairperson would agree that this is a small step. But I think the chairperson should also deserve and be accorded great credit for tough negotiating, for a good agreement that I think will achieve many things, but, most of all, prevention of the shutdown of the government again which we should not and cannot inflict on the American people.

I am sure the chairperson would have had different provisions in it if she had written it herself, just as Congressman Ryan would say the same thing. But this is the essence of what we are supposed to be doing. The option of shutting down the government is something I do not really understand, why anybody, after what we just went through, would want to have as a viable option of our failure to act.

Again, I thank the chairperson.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I will vote in favor of the bipartisan budget compromise put forward by Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan.

I understand some of my colleagues are not happy with this budget deal. If any of them had been able to show me a better alternative that had the votes to pass in both the House and the Senate and prevent a government shutdown next month, then I would vote no on the measure before the Senate. Unfortunately, we did not have a better plan.

I share the concerns that many of my colleagues have with the provision that slows the growth of working-aged military retirees. This provision will not take effect until the end of 2015. I am confident that, before then, under the leadership of the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, we will overturn this unfair provision.

My support for this budget deal centers primarily on two very important facts. First, this agreement will prevent another government shutdown; we cannot put the American people and the people in my State of Arizona through another government shutdown. And, second, the budget deal will go a long way in alleviating the devastating impact of sequestration on our military.

It is imperative that we do what is necessary to avoid sequestration if we are to expect our military to properly defend this Nation and provide for our national security. Defense Secretary Hagel has stated his support for this budget agreement, as have GEN Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Christine Fox, Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense, GEN Ray Odierno, Chief of Staff of the Army, and GEN Mark Welsh, Chief of Staff of the Air Force.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as if in morning business.

Mr. President, I am introducing the Empowering Patients First Act, companion legislation to H.R. 2300, introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Tom Price. I thank Congressman Price for all the hard work he did on this legislation. I am very grateful for that.

I believe this legislation would give patients, families, and doctors the power to make medical decisions, and not Washington.

Specifically, this legislation would enable everyone to purchase health insurance through deductions, credits, or advanceable credits; equalize tax treatment of employer-sponsored plans and plans purchased by individuals by letting individuals buy health insurance

with pre-tax dollars; let small business owners band together across State lines through association health plans, known as AHPs, and take advantage of the increased purchasing power which larger businesses are able to take advantage of through increased bargaining power, volume discounts, and administrative efficiencies. It would let consumers buy insurance across State lines, and let individuals own their insurance like a 401(k) plan so they can take it with them across State lines if they change jobs.

I don't think there is any doubt in the majority of Americans' minds--and poll after poll indicates--that ObamaCare is a failure. The American people do not believe in it. And it isn't just the problems with the rollout of the Web site--it is all of the aspects of it which have become so complex and so difficult.

Basically, it is as some of us who fought it day after day here on the floor said: an experiment in social engineering, where young people who are healthy are going to pay for the health care of those who are older and sicker--a redistribution of wealth that then-Senator Obama favored and stated when he was running for President.

That is not the way to address health care needs in America. It has not bent the health care curve down. It has not allowed people, if they want to keep their insurance, to be able to keep it. I noticed that was voted as the biggest lie of the year by one of the periodicals here. And it is a failure.

We on the other side of this issue are also required to come up with alternatives, because we vowed to repeal and replace ObamaCare, not just repeal it. I believe that what Congressman Price has introduced, and what I am introducing today as a companion bill, is a step in that direction.

It is time that we on this side of the aisle came up with our agenda for health care in America because we know that the inflation associated with health care costs is unsustainable, that there are millions of Americans who do not have health care, and there is a particular problem for those with preexisting conditions.

We need to repeal this horrendous mistake--which, by the way, was done on strictly party line votes, the first entitlement program ever enacted that was done without a single bipartisan vote on it. As many of us predicted back in 2009 when this legislation was passed, it was doomed to failure. Time after time, amendment after amendment, as we attempted to repeal it for 25 days, I believe it was, of floor consideration back in 2009, it was voted down on a party line basis.

They sowed the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind. We need to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and we need to replace it because health care in America is still not satisfactory, nor have we fulfilled the needs and the obligations we have to all of our citizens.

The problems with the Affordable Care Act are well known: A failed Web site rollout that has hindered enrollment and the purchase of mandated coverage. As of December 17, only an estimated 440,835 people have enrolled for a health plan. That is 6.2 percent of the enrollment goal of 7 million by March 31, 2014.

There is a destructive tax on medical devices that will discourage innovation and encourage these businesses to move offshore. We have already seen medical device manufacturers leaving the United States of America as they said they would if they were taxed to the point where they could not be competitive with medical devices that were manufactured in foreign countries.

There is disappointment for Americans who are happy with their current coverage and want to keep their coverage. It is estimated that 10 million Americans will have their health plans terminated due to ObamaCare.

According to a December 17 Washington Post-ABC poll, only 19 percent of Americans believe ObamaCare is improving the country's health care system. Only 8 percent believe ObamaCare is improving their insurance coverage. Only 5 percent of Americans believe their health care costs are decreasing as a result of ObamaCare, and 47 percent of Americans believe the President's health care law is increasing the cost of their health care.

It is clear that ObamaCare is not working for the American people, and they have little faith in the administration's efforts to fix our broken health care system.

This legislation I am introducing today makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all Americans--from deductions to advanceable, refundable credits so that everyone has an economic incentive to purchase coverage they want for themselves and their families, not what the government forces them to buy. In addition, it allows greater choices in portability, so that every health policy is owned by the patient, regardless of who pays. This means the coverage would go with the person if they change or lose their job. It gives employers more flexibility in the benefits offered and provides many more coverage options for people with preexisting conditions so that no one is priced out of the market, regardless of health status.

It addresses increasing costs by clamping down on abusive lawsuits, ends the practice of defensive medicine, gains significant savings from health care efficiencies--sifting out waste, fraud, and abuse--and bringing our Nation's budget under control.

Finally, it establishes doctor-led quality measures, ensuring that patients receive quality care defined by people who know medicine, not by government. It encourages healthier lifestyles by giving employers and health policies more flexibility to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs.

If enacted, this legislation would save trillions of dollars. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who is the former director of the Congressional Budget Office and one of the most credible people in this town, estimates this legislation would save American tax payers $2.37 trillion in its first decade alone. According to the analysis of Mr. Holtz-Eakin, compared to current law this legislation would produce smaller premium increases on average, yielding lower premiums than current law--nearly 19 percent for single policies and up to 15 percent for family policies; increase patient access to physicians; produce a 10-percent increase in medical productivity; and increase the number of insured individuals by 29 percent.

Americans are looking for an alternative to ObamaCare. This legislation is a step in the right direction and will provide Americans an alternative that empowers patients, families, and doctors to make the medical decisions, not those in Washington, DC.

I find of interest in the Wall Street Journal an opinion piece entitled ``ObamaCare's Troubles Are Only Beginning,'' by Michael Boskin, a very well respected economist. It says:

Be prepared for eligibility, payment and information

protection debacles--and longer waits for care.

He says:

The shocks--economic and political--will get much worse

next year and beyond. Here's why: The ``sticker shock'' that

many buyers of new, ACA-compliant health plans have

experienced--with premiums 30% higher, or more, than their

previous coverage--has only begun. The costs borne by

individuals will be even more obvious next year as more

people start having to pay higher deductibles and copays.

If, as many predict, too few healthy young people sign up

for insurance that is overpriced in order to subsidize older,

sicker people, the insurance market will unravel in a ``death

spiral'' of ever-higher premiums and fewer signups. The

government, through taxpayer-funded ``risk corridors,'' is on

the hook for billions of dollars of potential insurance-

company losses. This will be about as politically popular as

bank bailouts.

The ``I can't keep my doctor'' shock will also hit more and

more people in coming months. To keep prices to consumers as

low as possible--given cost pressures generated by the

government's rules, controls and coverage mandates--insurance

companies in many cases are offering plans that have very

restrictive networks, with lower-cost providers that exclude

some of the best physicians and hospitals.

Finally, there is an article entitled ``Second wave of health care plan cancellations looms.'' It goes on to say:

An analysis by the American Enterprise Institute, a

conservative think tank, shows the administration anticipates

half to two-thirds of small businesses would have policies

canceled or be compelled to send workers into the ObamaCare

exchanges. They predict up to 100 million small and large

business policies could be canceled next year.

I ask unanimous consent these articles be printed in the Record.

It is time for us to begin to consider alternatives and recognize that this legislation needs to be repaired and replaced.

I yield the floor.

[Dec. 15, 2013]

ObamaCare's Troubles Are Only Beginning

Be prepared for eligibility, payment and information protection

debacles--and longer waits for care.

(By Michael J. Boskin)

The White House is claiming that the Healthcare.gov website

is mostly fixed, that the millions of Americans whose health

plans were canceled thanks to government rules may be able to

keep them for another year, and that in any event these

people will get better plans through ObamaCare exchanges.

Whatever the truth of these assertions, those who expect

better days ahead for the Affordable Care Act are in for a

rude awakening. The shocks--economic and political--will get

much worse next year and beyond. Here's why:

The ``sticker shock'' that many buyers of new, ACA-

compliant health plans have experienced--with premiums 30%

higher, or more, than their previous coverage--has only

begun. The costs borne by individuals will be even more

obvious next year as more people start having to pay higher

deductibles and copays.

If, as many predict, too few healthy young people sign up

for insurance that is overpriced in order to subsidize older,

sicker people, the insurance market will unravel in a ``death

spiral'' of ever-higher premiums and fewer signups. The

government, through taxpayer-funded ``risk corridors,'' is on

the hook for billions of dollars of potential insurance-

company losses. This will be about as politically popular as

bank bailouts.

The ``I can't keep my doctor'' shock will also hit more and

more people in coming months. To keep prices to consumers as

low as possible--given cost pressures generated by the

government's rules, controls and coverage mandates--insurance

companies in many cases are offering plans that have very

restrictive networks, with lower-cost providers that exclude

some of the best physicians and hospitals.

Next year, millions must choose among unfamiliar physicians

and hospitals, or paying more for preferred providers who are

not part of their insurance network. Some health outcomes

will deteriorate from a less familiar doctor-patient

relationship.

More IT failures are likely. People looking for health

plans on ObamaCare exchanges may be able to fill out their

applications with more ease. But the far more complex back-

office side of the webssite--where the information in their

application is checked against government databases to

determine the premium subsidies and prices they will be

charged, and where the applications are forwarded to

insurance companies--is still under construction. Be prepared

for eligibility, coverage gap, billing, claims, insurer

payment and patient information-protection debacles.

The next shock will come when the scores of millions

outside the individual market--people who are covered by

employers, in union plans, or on Medicare and Medicaid--

experience the downsides of ObamaCare. There will be longer

waits for hospital visits, doctors' appointments and

specialist treatment, as more people crowd fewer providers.

Those with means can respond to the government-driven

waiting lines by making side payments to providers or seeking

care through doctors who do not participate in insurance

plans. But this will be difficult for most people.

Next, the Congressional Budget Office's estimated 25%

expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare will exert pressure on

state Medicaid spending (although the pressure will be

delayed for a few years by federal subsidies). This pressure

on state budgets means less money on education and

transportation, and higher state taxes.

The ``Cadillac tax'' on health plans to help pay for

ObamaCare starts four years from this Jan. 1. It will fall

heavily on unions whose plans are expensive due to generous

health benefits.

In the nearer term, a political iceberg looms next year.

Insurance companies usually submit proposed pricing to

regulators in the summer, and the open enrollment period

begins in the fall for plans starting Jan. 1. Businesses of

all sizes that currently provide health care will have to

offer ObamaCare's expensive, mandated benefits, or drop their

plans and--except the smallest firms--pay a fine. Tens of

millions of Americans with employer-provided health plans

risk paying more for less, and losing their policies and

doctors to more restrictive networks. The administration is

desperately trying to delay employer-plan problems beyond the

2014 election to avoid this shock.

Meanwhile, ObamaCare will lead to more part-time workers in

some industries, as hours are cut back to conform to

arbitrary definitions in the law of what constitutes full-

time employment. Many small businesses will be cautious about

hiring more than 50 full-time employees, which would subject

them to the law's employer insurance mandate.

On the supply side, medicine will become a far less

attractive career for talented young people. More doctors

will restrict practice or retire early rather than accept

lower incomes and work conditions they did not anticipate.

Already, many practices are closed to Medicaid recipients,

some also to Medicare. The pace of innovation in drugs,

medical devices and delivery is expected to slow

significantly, as higher taxes and even rationing set in.

The repeated assertions by the law's supporters that nobody

but the rich would be worse off was based on a beyond-

implausible claim that one could expand by millions the

number of people with health insurance, lower health-care

costs without rationing, and improve quality. The reality is

that any squeezing of insurance-company profits, or reduction

in uncompensated emergency-room care amounts to a tiny

fraction of the trillions of dollars extracted from those

people overpaying for insurance, or redistributed from

taxpayers.

The Affordable Care Act's disastrous debut sent the

president's approval ratings into a tailspin and

congressional Democrats in competitive districts fleeing for

cover. If the law's continuing unpopularity enables

Republicans to regain the Senate in 2014, the president will

be forced to veto repeated attempts to repeal the law or to

negotiate major changes.

The risk of a complete repeal if a Republican takes the

White House in 2016 will put enormous pressure on Democratic

candidates--and on Republicans--to articulate a compelling

alternative to the cost and coverage problems that beset

health care. A good start would be sliding-scale subsidies to

help people buy a low-cost catastrophic plan, purchasable

across state lines, equalized tax treatment of those buying

insurance on their own with those on employer plans, and

expanded high-risk pools.

Mr. President, I am introducing the Empowering Patients First Act, companion legislation to H.R. 2300, introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Tom Price. I thank Congressman Price for all the hard work he did on this legislation. I am very grateful for that.

I believe this legislation would give patients, families, and doctors the power to make medical decisions, and not Washington.

Specifically, this legislation would enable everyone to purchase health insurance through deductions, credits, or advanceable credits; equalize tax treatment of employer-sponsored plans and plans purchased by individuals by letting individuals buy health insurance

with pre-tax dollars; let small business owners band together across State lines through association health plans, known as AHPs, and take advantage of the increased purchasing power which larger businesses are able to take advantage of through increased bargaining power, volume discounts, and administrative efficiencies. It would let consumers buy insurance across State lines, and let individuals own their insurance like a 401(k) plan so they can take it with them across State lines if they change jobs.

I don't think there is any doubt in the majority of Americans' minds--and poll after poll indicates--that ObamaCare is a failure. The American people do not believe in it. And it isn't just the problems with the rollout of the Web site--it is all of the aspects of it which have become so complex and so difficult.

Basically, it is as some of us who fought it day after day here on the floor said: an experiment in social engineering, where young people who are healthy are going to pay for the health care of those who are older and sicker--a redistribution of wealth that then-Senator Obama favored and stated when he was running for President.

That is not the way to address health care needs in America. It has not bent the health care curve down. It has not allowed people, if they want to keep their insurance, to be able to keep it. I noticed that was voted as the biggest lie of the year by one of the periodicals here. And it is a failure.

We on the other side of this issue are also required to come up with alternatives, because we vowed to repeal and replace ObamaCare, not just repeal it. I believe that what Congressman Price has introduced, and what I am introducing today as a companion bill, is a step in that direction.

It is time that we on this side of the aisle came up with our agenda for health care in America because we know that the inflation associated with health care costs is unsustainable, that there are millions of Americans who do not have health care, and there is a particular problem for those with preexisting conditions.

We need to repeal this horrendous mistake--which, by the way, was done on strictly party line votes, the first entitlement program ever enacted that was done without a single bipartisan vote on it. As many of us predicted back in 2009 when this legislation was passed, it was doomed to failure. Time after time, amendment after amendment, as we attempted to repeal it for 25 days, I believe it was, of floor consideration back in 2009, it was voted down on a party line basis.

They sowed the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind. We need to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and we need to replace it because health care in America is still not satisfactory, nor have we fulfilled the needs and the obligations we have to all of our citizens.

The problems with the Affordable Care Act are well known: A failed Web site rollout that has hindered enrollment and the purchase of mandated coverage. As of December 17, only an estimated 440,835 people have enrolled for a health plan. That is 6.2 percent of the enrollment goal of 7 million by March 31, 2014.

There is a destructive tax on medical devices that will discourage innovation and encourage these businesses to move offshore. We have already seen medical device manufacturers leaving the United States of America as they said they would if they were taxed to the point where they could not be competitive with medical devices that were manufactured in foreign countries.

There is disappointment for Americans who are happy with their current coverage and want to keep their coverage. It is estimated that 10 million Americans will have their health plans terminated due to ObamaCare.

According to a December 17 Washington Post-ABC poll, only 19 percent of Americans believe ObamaCare is improving the country's health care system. Only 8 percent believe ObamaCare is improving their insurance coverage. Only 5 percent of Americans believe their health care costs are decreasing as a result of ObamaCare, and 47 percent of Americans believe the President's health care law is increasing the cost of their health care.

It is clear that ObamaCare is not working for the American people, and they have little faith in the administration's efforts to fix our broken health care system.

This legislation I am introducing today makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all Americans--from deductions to advanceable, refundable credits so that everyone has an economic incentive to purchase coverage they want for themselves and their families, not what the government forces them to buy. In addition, it allows greater choices in portability, so that every health policy is owned by the patient, regardless of who pays. This means the coverage would go with the person if they change or lose their job. It gives employers more flexibility in the benefits offered and provides many more coverage options for people with preexisting conditions so that no one is priced out of the market, regardless of health status.

It addresses increasing costs by clamping down on abusive lawsuits, ends the practice of defensive medicine, gains significant savings from health care efficiencies--sifting out waste, fraud, and abuse--and bringing our Nation's budget under control.

Finally, it establishes doctor-led quality measures, ensuring that patients receive quality care defined by people who know medicine, not by government. It encourages healthier lifestyles by giving employers and health policies more flexibility to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs.

If enacted, this legislation would save trillions of dollars. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who is the former director of the Congressional Budget Office and one of the most credible people in this town, estimates this legislation would save American tax payers $2.37 trillion in its first decade alone. According to the analysis of Mr. Holtz-Eakin, compared to current law this legislation would produce smaller premium increases on average, yielding lower premiums than current law--nearly 19 percent for single policies and up to 15 percent for family policies; increase patient access to physicians; produce a 10-percent increase in medical productivity; and increase the number of insured individuals by 29 percent.

Americans are looking for an alternative to ObamaCare. This legislation is a step in the right direction and will provide Americans an alternative that empowers patients, families, and doctors to make the medical decisions, not those in Washington, DC.

I find of interest in the Wall Street Journal an opinion piece entitled ``ObamaCare's Troubles Are Only Beginning,'' by Michael Boskin, a very well respected economist. It says:

Be prepared for eligibility, payment and information

protection debacles--and longer waits for care.

He says:

The shocks--economic and political--will get much worse

next year and beyond. Here's why: The ``sticker shock'' that

many buyers of new, ACA-compliant health plans have

experienced--with premiums 30% higher, or more, than their

previous coverage--has only begun. The costs borne by

individuals will be even more obvious next year as more

people start having to pay higher deductibles and copays.

If, as many predict, too few healthy young people sign up

for insurance that is overpriced in order to subsidize older,

sicker people, the insurance market will unravel in a ``death

spiral'' of ever-higher premiums and fewer signups. The

government, through taxpayer-funded ``risk corridors,'' is on

the hook for billions of dollars of potential insurance-

company losses. This will be about as politically popular as

bank bailouts.

The ``I can't keep my doctor'' shock will also hit more and

more people in coming months. To keep prices to consumers as

low as possible--given cost pressures generated by the

government's rules, controls and coverage mandates--insurance

companies in many cases are offering plans that have very

restrictive networks, with lower-cost providers that exclude

some of the best physicians and hospitals.

Finally, there is an article entitled ``Second wave of health care plan cancellations looms.'' It goes on to say:

An analysis by the American Enterprise Institute, a

conservative think tank, shows the administration anticipates

half to two-thirds of small businesses would have policies

canceled or be compelled to send workers into the ObamaCare

exchanges. They predict up to 100 million small and large

business policies could be canceled next year.

I ask unanimous consent these articles be printed in the Record.

It is time for us to begin to consider alternatives and recognize that this legislation needs to be repaired and replaced.

I yield the floor.

[Dec. 15, 2013]

ObamaCare's Troubles Are Only Beginning

Be prepared for eligibility, payment and information protection

debacles--and longer waits for care.

(By Michael J. Boskin)

The White House is claiming that the Healthcare.gov website

is mostly fixed, that the millions of Americans whose health

plans were canceled thanks to government rules may be able to

keep them for another year, and that in any event these

people will get better plans through ObamaCare exchanges.

Whatever the truth of these assertions, those who expect

better days ahead for the Affordable Care Act are in for a

rude awakening. The shocks--economic and political--will get

much worse next year and beyond. Here's why:

The ``sticker shock'' that many buyers of new, ACA-

compliant health plans have experienced--with premiums 30%

higher, or more, than their previous coverage--has only

begun. The costs borne by individuals will be even more

obvious next year as more people start having to pay higher

deductibles and copays.

If, as many predict, too few healthy young people sign up

for insurance that is overpriced in order to subsidize older,

sicker people, the insurance market will unravel in a ``death

spiral'' of ever-higher premiums and fewer signups. The

government, through taxpayer-funded ``risk corridors,'' is on

the hook for billions of dollars of potential insurance-

company losses. This will be about as politically popular as

bank bailouts.

The ``I can't keep my doctor'' shock will also hit more and

more people in coming months. To keep prices to consumers as

low as possible--given cost pressures generated by the

government's rules, controls and coverage mandates--insurance

companies in many cases are offering plans that have very

restrictive networks, with lower-cost providers that exclude

some of the best physicians and hospitals.

Next year, millions must choose among unfamiliar physicians

and hospitals, or paying more for preferred providers who are

not part of their insurance network. Some health outcomes

will deteriorate from a less familiar doctor-patient

relationship.

More IT failures are likely. People looking for health

plans on ObamaCare exchanges may be able to fill out their

applications with more ease. But the far more complex back-

office side of the webssite--where the information in their

application is checked against government databases to

determine the premium subsidies and prices they will be

charged, and where the applications are forwarded to

insurance companies--is still under construction. Be prepared

for eligibility, coverage gap, billing, claims, insurer

payment and patient information-protection debacles.

The next shock will come when the scores of millions

outside the individual market--people who are covered by

employers, in union plans, or on Medicare and Medicaid--

experience the downsides of ObamaCare. There will be longer

waits for hospital visits, doctors' appointments and

specialist treatment, as more people crowd fewer providers.

Those with means can respond to the government-driven

waiting lines by making side payments to providers or seeking

care through doctors who do not participate in insurance

plans. But this will be difficult for most people.

Next, the Congressional Budget Office's estimated 25%

expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare will exert pressure on

state Medicaid spending (although the pressure will be

delayed for a few years by federal subsidies). This pressure

on state budgets means less money on education and

transportation, and higher state taxes.

The ``Cadillac tax'' on health plans to help pay for

ObamaCare starts four years from this Jan. 1. It will fall

heavily on unions whose plans are expensive due to generous

health benefits.

In the nearer term, a political iceberg looms next year.

Insurance companies usually submit proposed pricing to

regulators in the summer, and the open enrollment period

begins in the fall for plans starting Jan. 1. Businesses of

all sizes that currently provide health care will have to

offer ObamaCare's expensive, mandated benefits, or drop their

plans and--except the smallest firms--pay a fine. Tens of

millions of Americans with employer-provided health plans

risk paying more for less, and losing their policies and

doctors to more restrictive networks. The administration is

desperately trying to delay employer-plan problems beyond the

2014 election to avoid this shock.

Meanwhile, ObamaCare will lead to more part-time workers in

some industries, as hours are cut back to conform to

arbitrary definitions in the law of what constitutes full-

time employment. Many small businesses will be cautious about

hiring more than 50 full-time employees, which would subject

them to the law's employer insurance mandate.

On the supply side, medicine will become a far less

attractive career for talented young people. More doctors

will restrict practice or retire early rather than accept

lower incomes and work conditions they did not anticipate.

Already, many practices are closed to Medicaid recipients,

some also to Medicare. The pace of innovation in drugs,

medical devices and delivery is expected to slow

significantly, as higher taxes and even rationing set in.

The repeated assertions by the law's supporters that nobody

but the rich would be worse off was based on a beyond-

implausible claim that one could expand by millions the

number of people with health insurance, lower health-care

costs without rationing, and improve quality. The reality is

that any squeezing of insurance-company profits, or reduction

in uncompensated emergency-room care amounts to a tiny

fraction of the trillions of dollars extracted from those

people overpaying for insurance, or redistributed from

taxpayers.

The Affordable Care Act's disastrous debut sent the

president's approval ratings into a tailspin and

congressional Democrats in competitive districts fleeing for

cover. If the law's continuing unpopularity enables

Republicans to regain the Senate in 2014, the president will

be forced to veto repeated attempts to repeal the law or to

negotiate major changes.

The risk of a complete repeal if a Republican takes the

White House in 2016 will put enormous pressure on Democratic

candidates--and on Republicans--to articulate a compelling

alternative to the cost and coverage problems that beset

health care. A good start would be sliding-scale subsidies to

help people buy a low-cost catastrophic plan, purchasable

across state lines, equalized tax treatment of those buying

insurance on their own with those on employer plans, and

expanded high-risk pools.

I come to the floor to speak in support of the 2-year bipartisan budget agreement reached by Representative Ryan and Senator Murray. I am pleased that the budget agreement passed the House of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support and that cloture was invoked in the Senate today.

I understand there are many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle who are very unhappy with this deal and intend to vote against it. My only response to that is I respect their vote, but I would like to know what we do in order to avoid another shutdown of the government. The American people steadfastly reject a shutdown of the government. I have concerns about the budget deal--I think everybody does--because of the nature of the way business is done. But to somehow vote against it without an alternative to keep the government from shutting down lacks some intellectual integrity.

My support and vote will be based on two important facts:

It will prevent another government shutdown, which we cannot put the American people through or the people of my State through again.

It goes a long way in alleviating the devastating impact of sequestration on our military. Have no doubt that the sequestration has had a devastating effect on many aspects of our ability to defend this Nation. Don't just talk to our leadership but talk to the men and women who are serving. They don't know where they are going to go next. The pilots aren't flying, the ships aren't sailing, and the training is not being conducted. That is unfair to the men and women who are serving their military, and I would remind us that all have volunteered to serve this country in harm's way.

This budget deal will avert another government shutdown and reduce the impact of sequestration. It will reduce the deficit by roughly $23 billion without raising taxes.

Peggy Noonan is a noted conservative columnist who writes for the Wall Street Journal and served in the Reagan administration. She observed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed:

[t]he government is now unable even to pass a budget, to

perform this minimal duty. Instead, Congress and the

administration lurch from crisis to crisis, from shutdown to

debt-ceiling battle. That gives a sense the process itself is

broken, and this lends an air of instability, of Third World-

ness, to the world's oldest continuing democracy. We can't

even control our books. We don't even try. That's my context

for the Ryan-Murray budget deal.

She continued:

Should it be passed? Yes, yes and yes. The good things

about it are very good. The idea that Republicans and

Democrats are capable of coming to a budget agreement is

good. The idea that they can negotiate and make concessions

and accept gains is good. The idea the U.S. government is

able to produce anything but stasis and acrimony is good.

That we can still function even in the age of Obama--good.

She noted:

[This] agreement moves us an inch or two in the right

direction. Let me tell you what that's better than: It's

better than moving a few inches in the wrong direction! And

it's better than where we've been, in a state of agitated

paralysis.

Only weeks ago we all witnessed firsthand the impact a government shutdown had on our constituents, and none of us wants to go through that again.

In my home State of Arizona, the impact was very significant. Nearly 500,000 visitors were turned away from Arizona's national parks during the shutdown. Arizona lost about $33 million in visitor spending. At Grand Canyon National Park, food banks had to rush supplies to 2,200 employees of the concessionaires inside the park who were furloughed or laid off. Arizona spent about $500,000 in donations to reopen the Grand Canyon for 5 days during the shutdown.

The list goes on and on.

Our approval rating, I would say to my friends on this side of the aisle, and our party's approval rating plummeted. The damage was severe.

Now we have an agreement. I repeat to my colleagues who would vote against this--both on that side of the aisle and this side of the aisle--if you have a better idea, bring it up, let's consider it, and let's vote on it because the only alternative to this is a government shutdown. Let's not deceive ourselves about why we are voting and what we are voting on.

I admit it is not perfect. I think it has caused heartburn for all of us. One potentially problematic provision--and it is problematic--would slow the growth of cost-of-living adjustments for working-age--and I emphasize ``working-age''--military retirees. Let me point out that the COLAs for working-age military retirees under the age of 62 will continue to grow after 2015, in most cases more slowly than before.

The fact is that the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee--one of the most admired and respected individuals in this Senate--has stated that we will review this provision, and we will review it in the context of the work that is already being done on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and that is a review of all paid benefits and aspects of our military that, in the words of former Secretary of Defense Mr. Gates that these entitlements in the military are ``eating us alive.''

I would like to give an example. In 2012 military retirees and survivor benefit recipients received $52 billion. In 10 years that will grow to $59 billion. By 2034 it will grow to $108 billion per year. From 2001 to 2011 payments to military retirees grew by 49 percent. Every penny of it is deserved. Every penny of it we are proud we gave them. But I don't think there is any doubt that we are going to have to look at this whole issue of the pay, benefits, retirement, and all of that of members of the military in a prospective fashion.

I am confident that one of the items taken up next year in the Senate Armed Services Committee will be what we are passing today, but it will be brought up in the context of all of the aspects of personnel costs in the military today--keeping in mind that we have an all-volunteer service and we are proud and pleased of the fact that we have America's finest in the military.

But I can say for a fact that with this lurching from shutdown to shutdown, these draconian effects of sequestration--and I know my colleagues know that in 2014 there will be a more severe cut than at any time--these brave young men and women are getting sick and tired of not being able to do their jobs, and the best and the brightest are already making decisions as to whether to remain in the military.

I wish to mention one small aspect that I think is indicative. About 20 years ago there was a very large influx of pilots into the civilian airlines as airlines began to expand rather dramatically. That very large number of pilots is now nearing retirement age.

There is going to be a dramatic demand for airline pilots, who, as we all know, are very well paid. We are offering pilots $225,000 to stay in and fly airplanes in the military. Do you know that the vast majority of these young pilots, these aviators, are not accepting that? One of the reasons they are not signing up is because a lot of times they don't fly anymore. They are not operating anymore, and they are spending time away from their homes and their families without being able to do what they were trained to do. This is only a small example of the impact of sequestration on the military.

I wish all of my colleagues who are members of the Armed Services Committee would listen to the testimony of our military leaders who tell us that already they may not be able to defend this Nation in the most efficient fashion because of the effects of sequestration.

All I can say is that if I had written this legislation--I think each one of us individually would have written it differently, but we didn't--the option of shutting down the government and the option of further damage inflicted by sequestration I hope would override the problems we see with this agreement. I want to promise my colleagues that I will work in every way with Senator

Levin under his leadership next year--remember, this COLA issue does not kick in until 2015--I will work with my colleagues under Senator Levin and Senator Inhofe's leadership to review this provision in this bill as to whether it is fair and whether it needs to be changed.

Again, I challenge my colleagues who will come to this floor and speak against this agreement to tell me what we can vote on and pass to prevent another government shutdown, and then I will be pleased to support it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I regret that I was absent from the Senate yesterday and was unable to vote on the nomination of Jeh Johnson to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Had I been here, I would have voted in opposition to this nominee.

Reforming our broken immigration system is one of the Nation's top priorities. To that end, ensuring that our borders are secure and preventing illegal entry is absolutely vital. In my capacity as the senior Senator from Arizona and one of the lead advocates of

comprehensively reforming our immigration system, I have a solemn obligation and a constitutional prerogative to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, accomplishes that mission. In furtherance of that obligation and that prerogative, I--indeed Congress--must count on DHS cooperation to provide any relevant information I and this body request.

Unfortunately, in connection with the Senate's effort to craft legislation to help secure our borders, the former DHS Secretary unjustifiably refused to provide such information. The information I asked for was intended to let Congress and the American people judge for themselves if progress is being made to protect our borders from illegal entry. To date, I never received that information from this administration.

So first during his confirmation hearing and then in writing, I asked Mr. Johnson to commit to me that, if confirmed as the new DHS Secretary, he would provide me that same information. Unfortunately, on grounds that I find to be specious and unacceptable, he declined. On the basis of his response, I can only conclude that, if confirmed, the level of cooperation between DHS and me, particularly on the vitally important issue of border security--when comprehensive immigration remains such a vitally important issue--would remain business as usual, and that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to me and to the people who interests I am committed to representing.

For this reason, I have no choice other than to oppose Mr. Johnson's nomination.

I have known Jeh for some time. I have respect for his work while General Counsel for the Department of Defense. In particular, I applaud his efforts in the development of the Department of Defense's policy regarding the use of deadly force in connection with counterterrorist operations and other important defense and national security issues.

But what I have seen all too frequently is the inability or unwillingness of appointed officials within this administration to free themselves from the unelected, unpointed, political staff in the West Wing that put political expediency ahead of meaningful governance. I can have no tolerance for another Secretary who will act as nothing more than a road block on behalf of those with a political agenda and is either unwilling or unable to provide transparency into the actions of this department and its components.

Congress, particularly those of us who are the border, has the right to have that information. It is our responsibility and obligation to our constituents. I have constituents in my State who every night, there are people who are crossing their border illegally. I have constituents that every day, drug smugglers are going across their property and their homes. They certainly have the right, as citizens, to know what measures need to be taken in order to control our border.

Earlier this year, the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill with 67 votes that included unprecedented increases in spending to help secure the border. The information we based these spending increases on came directly from leadership within the Border Patrol, and I believe it will be successful. But the American people deserve to have more than my faith in the efforts of the Border Patrol as to whether the border is made secure. Our constituents are relying on us to finally secure the border but also be good stewards of their tax dollars and to have the capabilities to ensure their money is being used wisely and if not, to make the appropriate adjustments.

When developing this legislation, we requested information from Secretary Napolitano that I believe would have helped make the legislation stronger and potentially garner more support from my Republican colleagues. This information was never provided to us, I believe, for solely political reasons but has ultimately harmed our ability to get comprehensive immigration reform legislation signed into law.

This is the source of my disappointment with Mr. Johnson: His refusal to commit to provide the information necessary would prevent Members of Congress from making reasonable and informed decisions that serve the American people. And Mr. Johnson did so under circumstances that other Members of this body have sought--and obtained--commitments of cooperation.

For example, here is what Secretary Kerry said in response to a request for answers regarding the Bengazi raid: ``[H]ere's what I say to you. After 29 years here--in my 29th, I respect the prerogatives of the United States Senate and the members of Congress. You represent the American people, you're the other branch of government, you have the right to know what took place. And I have an obligation commensurate with the, you know, regulations and classifications and privacy and other things that are at play here, to help you get the answers, and we'll do that.''

And what did I get from Mr. Johnson? ``If I am confirmed . . . I promise that addressing your letter will be a top and immediate priority for me.''

For years, we were told that apprehensions are down and the border is more secure. In reality, we all knew that the economy was the primary driver in reducing potential illegal border crossers. In the last 2 years, with slight improvements in the economy, we have seen a 20 percent increase in the number of apprehensions. Does that mean the border is less or more secure?

For years DHS has been telling us they are developing a border security index in a shift away from using apprehensions as the sole measure of success and to get a true measure of security along the border. We have been waiting 3 years with no sign that the index will be made public. All indications are the development of the index has been shelved.

Until Congress is provided greater information on the capabilities and deficiencies of the Department of Homeland Security's abilities to secure the border, Congress will not be able to determine if the border is secure.

I regret that Jeh Johnson has refused to commit to providing this information to Congress, and I do not support his nomination.

I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my friend from Oklahoma.

First, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his leadership and his dedication to getting this authorization bill passed. I think my friend from Oklahoma would agree with me there is no reason we are where we are today.

Is it not true this bill was passed out of the Armed Services Committee in May and here we are now in December just now contemplating bringing it to the floor of the Senate?

With all due respect, one has to wonder about the priorities of the group and the leader who sets the agenda for the Senate. One of the real advantages of being in the majority is you set the agenda. So rather than take the bill to the floor, as we have for 51 years--for 51 years the Congress of the United States has taken up and passed a Defense authorization bill--we are now here in December, with the House of Representatives going out of session tomorrow, and we are faced with an unsavory parliamentary situation where we are having to maneuver in a way that a ``message''--and my friend from Oklahoma can correct me if I am wrong--a message that cannot be amended, otherwise it would have to go back to the other body, which is going out of session, which would then take us into January.

I ask my friend from Oklahoma: Isn't that where we are, and isn't that a commentary on the concern my friends on the other side of the aisle, the majority leader, has about the men and women who are serving in the military?

We will talk a little about what a failure to pass a Defense authorization bill is. But we are now in a situation which is a disservice not only to the men and women who are serving but to all of us--to every one of the 100 Senators--because every one of these Senators would want to have an amendment to make this bill better and that will impart to the rest of the body their knowledge, their expertise, and their priorities. So what are we doing? We are asking Members on this side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle to accept a piece of legislation without a single amendment to it. That, my friends, when we are talking about the defense of this Nation, is absolutely outrageous.

Would my friend from Oklahoma agree?

So we have established, by the calendar and by what has happened since May, that, obviously, the majority and the majority leader had a higher priority for whatever the hell it is we did rather than the defense of this Nation. That is a fact. I would challenge anyone on the other side of the aisle to come and argue differently. It is outrageous.

Now that we have established that, could I ask my friend what happens--and I know he has gone through it--what happens to the men and women in our military if we do wait until January, if we do wait until February or March or don't act at all?

For example, one of the best examples I have seen is that right now a married sergeant in the U.S. military who is serving as a helicopter crew chief in Afghanistan, beginning on the 1st of January-- please correct me if I am wrong--will lose $890 a month; is that correct?

So we send people into combat, and while we dither around here we are going to keep the men and women who are serving in harm's way from getting the benefits they have earned and deserve and are theirs by law. But we are not going to act, at least until January, perhaps.

I know the Senator from Oklahoma has gone on with a very long list about the completion of ships, about the health programs, and about a number of other issues, but I wish to focus for 1 minute on one area with my friend from Oklahoma.

I think all my colleagues are aware, and the American people are aware, there is a serious issue in the U.S. military. It is a very serious issue and it is the issue of sexual assaults. It is the

issue the Senator from Oklahoma has spent untold hours in discussions and debate and learning about this issue because it is a terrible thing that is going on in our military today.

Under the leadership of the Senator from Oklahoma and the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Levin, we have--and with the participation of every member of the committee, under their leadership--come up with a way to, at least to a significant degree, address this problem in the military.

There are still some controversial aspects of it that are not necessarily either side of the aisle but just a different viewpoint. But I would argue and ask my friend from Oklahoma, is it not true that we have made significant improvements in the Defense authorization bill on the issue of sexual assaults?

These changes, after hearings, after debate, after discussion were put into law and they were agreed to as being very necessary measures to try to bring this terrible situation of sexual assaults in the military under control. I ask my colleague from Oklahoma if this isn't, among many others, an issue that needs to be addressed.

Would the Senator agree that even though there is significant difference between Senator Gillibrand and Senator McCaskill, they were in agreement with the many provisions my colleague just pointed out, which, whether we address their disagreements or not, they were both agreed these are very important measures they both agree on, that the entire committee agreed on in addressing this issue of sexual assaults in the military.

I know long ago both the Senator from Oklahoma and I served in the military, which is not too relevant anymore, but both of us keep track of the military. We visit our military installations, and we spend time with the men and women who are serving both here and overseas. We are in communication with them. It is part of our privileges as their representatives, whether they happen to be in our home State or serving overseas in harm's way. When you talk to these young people--and they are the bravest of the brave and we all know the best of America--they do not understand why, when they are serving in combat and they are entitled to some additional pay because of being in danger, that will not happen. They do not understand why the bonus of special duty and incentive pay will lapse. They don't understand why that should happen. They do not understand why we are not addressing the issue of sexual assaults in the military. Many of them are deeply concerned about that.

By the way, I would also add--and I think my friend from Oklahoma will agree--this issue impacts on recruiting the most highly qualified young Americans.

So here we are on December 12 and we have still not completed our duty, our obligation to the men and women who are serving. They rely on us. They rely on us to take care of them. They rely on us to provide them with the weapons and the capabilities and the pay and benefits and to take care of their families. They rely on us. I am getting feedback from them that they are now beginning to believe we don't care that much. Frankly, I can't argue with that because why are we here in December? Why are we here in December? The fiscal year ended on 1 October. They ask: Why is it that you in Congress can't act to provide us with the tools we need to carry out our mission of defending the Nation?

Frankly, I don't have a very good answer, but maybe the Senator from Oklahoma does.

I finally say to my friend, I thank him for his leadership. I thank him for his willingness to really short circuit what should have been a 2- or 3-week exercise, where every Member of the Senate would have had the opportunity to propose amendments, to debate those amendments.

My colleague just mentioned the issue of detainees which is still something that deserves great scrutiny by this body. The issue of surveillance is clearly one that needs debate and discussion on the floor of the Senate. There are so many issues that we are not discussing in the slightest because we are now entrapped by a process which doesn't allow us to pass a single amendment to this absolutely vital piece of legislation.

I thank my friend from Oklahoma for understanding that even though we are placed in this incredibly unsavory situation where we are not able, every Member of the Senate who chooses to--and as the Senator from Oklahoma knows well, when we consider the Defense authorization bill, there are literally hundreds of amendments that we consider because of the interest and the commitment that all of our colleagues have. We are not going to be able to do that this time. But it seems to me too, at least we ought to get the bill passed so we can get our Defense Department and the men and women who are serving in it in the kind of condition they deserve.