Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I have been engaged in the back-and-forth for many years concerning the rights of the minority to oppose legislation or nominations for Senate advice and consent, which, obviously, as we all know, is part of the Constitution of the United States.

After investing all of those hundreds of hours in compromises, both when Republican leadership wanted to act to curtail the rights of the minority and when Democrats were doing it--I fought hard. A short time ago Senator Levin and Senator Schumer and others changed the rules to try to expedite the consideration of legislation for a whole lot of reasons, including the fact

that a majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have never been here in the minority.

We have now acted in a draconian fashion and, in my view, have fundamentally, historically damaged this institution. Among other things, for the first time since the Senate has been a body, we have now changed the rules to 51 votes rather than 67. First time in history. Unfortunately, the repercussions will be that we are moving a step--a very significant step--toward a majority-rule body.

As my friend from Michigan Senator Carl Levin quoted Senator Vandenberg, a former Senator from Michigan and a highly regarded individual in this institution, we have now broken the rules to change the rules. On the night we changed the rules, I read a letter from Senator Robert Byrd--who was one of the most outstanding leaders and clearly the expert on the Constitution and this institution--cautioning against it.

The reason I come to the floor today is not so much to revisit that because it is done. I wish to point out that I see the first manifestation now of the majority-rule vote. I have been a member of the Homeland Security Committee, and I have been involved in these issues for many years. I was also involved in the so-called Gang of 8, where we came up with a comprehensive immigration reform bill which was passed through this body. We still hope that the other body will address, at least in some way, the issue of comprehensive immigration reform.

I come from a border State, as my colleagues know. Our border is not secure. In fact, the majority of drugs that still come across our southern border come across the Arizona-Sonora border in Mexico. My constituents, many who live in the southern part of the State of Arizona, have home invasions, people crossing their property. In one case a rancher was shot and killed, and a Border Patrol agent was killed. In fact, the reality is that they don't have the same security in the southern part of my State as the rest of our citizens do in other parts of the country.

Border security was a fundamental and vitally important issue in the hundreds of hours of debate and discussions that I and my seven colleagues engaged in as we shaped the comprehensive immigration reform legislation, which was largely passed intact in the Senate.

I went back to my constituents and I said there is a very vital and important provision in this bill; that is, when this legislation is passed, we will embark on the goal of achieving 90 percent effectiveness at our border. We can never get complete control of our border--we all recognize that--but 90 percent effective control through surveillance, through hiring new people, through capabilities that we have--we can achieve 90 percent effective control.

Then comes the nomination hearing of Mr. Jeh Johnson for Secretary of Department of Homeland Security. I asked Mr. Johnson a simple, straightforward question. The question was: Mr. Johnson, when you are Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, will you provide this committee and me, Senator McCain, with a description of the measures that need to be taken in order for us to achieve what we have turned into legislation--at least in the Senate--90 percent effective control of our southern border?

His answer was no.

His answer, believe it or not, was no, that he could not provide that information. In fact, I was so astonished that I wrote him a letter and received a response, which I will read:

November 19, 2013.

Dear Senator McCain,

I regret that in my current posture as a nominee and

private citizen, I am not now in a position to commit to

provide the information you seek from the Department of

Homeland Security.

At this point, I must respectfully refer you to the

Department's current leadership. I know this was a matter of

discussion between you and Secretary Napolitano, and I

understand your frustration. As I believe I have demonstrated

to you and others on the Senate and House Armed Services

Committee--

Why he said Senate Armed Services Committee, I am not sure.

--I have a strong respect for Congress' oversight role. If I

am confirmed, and if your request is still outstanding at

that point, I promise that addressing your letter will be a

top and immediate priority for me.

This is the November 19, 2013, letter from Mr. Jeh Charles Johnson.

In other words, the nominee for the Department of Homeland Security, who has direct responsibility for securing our borders, direct responsibility as outlined in legislation passed by this body, the comprehensive immigration reform bill, refuses to give me and this body the information. I hope there are other Senators who might be interested in what is necessary to achieve 90 percent effective control of our borders. He refuses to give me that information.

Thanks to the good offices of my beloved friend Carl Levin and my dear friend Senator Carper, I just came from a meeting in my office with Mr. Jeh Johnson. Mr. Jeh Johnson again repeated to me that he could not give me the information of what is necessary, what tools are necessary to ensure 90 percent effective control of our border.

Allegedly, he is being prevented from doing that by the White House. It is stunning. Why would the White House prevent the nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security from providing this to Members of the Senate and members of the committee that has oversight of homeland security, which is fundamental information if we are going to achieve effective control of our border?

I go home to Arizona and I say: Yes, it is in the law, my friends. It is in the law that we are going to have to get 90 percent effective control of our border, but I don't know how we do it because the agency that will be required to do it will not give me the necessary information to do it.

My friends, we will voting on Monday to confirm Mr. Johnson. He will be confirmed. There is no doubt about it now that we have majority vote. We have now deprived Republicans of their advice and consent responsibilities and authority. We have not only changed the rules of the Senate, we have abridged the Constitution of the United States because the only way that I could have received this information from Mr. Johnson was if I had said: I can't approve of your nomination until you provide the information which, by any objective observer, I am entitled to--not only entitled to; it is my responsibility to know that. It is my responsibility. That is why we have a committee. That is why we have a committee, the homeland security committee, that has oversight of the functions of the executive branch. That is how equal branches of government are supposed to function.

Mr. Johnson will be confirmed, and the message will go out, believe me: You don't have to answer a question by a Republican Senator. You don't have to respond to a straightforward question.

There was nothing devious about the question I asked Mr. Johnson. There was nothing complicated. They certainly should have the information of what steps and measures are necessary to ensure 90 percent effective control of our border--which is a requirement in the law, if it is ever passed. Certainly the requirement was passed by the Senate.

It is kind of a sad day. It was a sad day for me when we changed the rules. It was a sad day for me to see people who have been here a very short period of time basically shatter the comity which exists and which is vital to doing business in the Senate.

I also would point out to my colleagues--particularly those who are new and who drove this change in the Senate rules--what goes around comes around and what goes around will come around. To their deep regret, some day--I say to the President and I say to my colleagues who voted for it on a party-line vote, for the first time in history changing the rules of the Senate from 67 votes to 51 votes--they will regret it.

The people who will suffer greatly from this are the American people because this place is largely dysfunctional anyway. If we think it was dysfunctional before, wait and see. I say that with deep regret because I value and treasure my relationships with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Some of the best friends I have are on the other side of the aisle. But to expect to do business as usual when I can't even get a straight answer for a question that--now by not having the answer inhibits and in many ways prohibits my ability to respond and carry

out my responsibilities to the citizens of my State--cannot go without being responded to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the chairman and ranking member if necessary as we discuss this legislation----

Or lack of legislation, which may be unique in the history of the Senate in that for 51 years this body has passed a defense authorization bill, gone to conference between the two Houses, and sent a bill to the President's desk--legislation that I think most Americans would agree is our first priority, and that is to defend the security of this Nation.

I guess one of the questions I have for the distinguished chairman of the committee, and obviously the ranking member, is that by us not acting on this bill before the end of the year, is it not true, I would ask Chairman Levin, that we have already done some damage to the military and our readiness? Is it not also true that in the years that Senator Levin and I and Senator Inhofe have been together in the Armed Services Committee, we have never tried to do an authorization bill in a week? There are too many issues that are worthy of debate and votes on the part of this body. So is it not true, I would ask Senator Levin, that if we fail to take up this legislation, we will be embarking into unknown and uncharted waters because then we will be leaving it, isn't it true, to various appropriations bills or continuing resolutions or a patchwork kind of addressing what I would argue--and I do not know how anyone could dispute--is the most important obligation the Congress of the United States has; that is, to authorize the provisions in law that are necessary to defend this Nation? I would ask the Senator from Michigan those questions.

Would the chairman mention a couple of those?

I should have stated at the beginning that I am very proud of the leadership that both Senator Inhofe and Senator Levin have provided to the Armed Services Committee.

I serve on a number of committees and have served on a number of committees in my time in the Senate. The bipartisanship and cooperative legislating that is exemplified by both Senators makes me proud and makes me believe there is still some hope for bipartisanship in the Senate. Their leadership has been vital in putting together an authorization bill which is, as we have described, incredibly important.

I ask both of my colleagues, I am hearing--especially now from this side of the aisle--it is OK if we let this go over into January. After all, we only have another week. We have the farm bill, we have the budget agreement, et cetera. The House, the other side of the Capitol, is going out of session.

Why isn't it OK to wait until January? We will be back early in January and work on this legislation then.

I am sure I know the answer, but I ask of the chairman if that isn't nearly as easy as it sounds, even if, contrary to custom in January, we would do anything legislatively.

Does the Senator from Oklahoma have a response?

I don't know if my colleagues wish to respond, but I wish to make two comments: One is that I am deeply disappointed--deeply, deeply disappointed--in the majority leader for not taking up this legislation much earlier. The majority controls the calendar. That is one of the key elements of the majority winning elections and majority in the Senate.

For us to wait since June, when we passed the bill out of the Armed Services Committee, until only a short time ago and then only allowing a few days is a grave disservice--not so much to the Members of the Senate--and a lack of prioritization of the importance of this legislation.

I am deeply disappointed the majority leader of the Senate, because of his manipulation of the calendar, has put us in this position.

Having said that, I spent time--as I know the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Michigan, our distinguished chairman--in the company of the men and women who serve. One of our obligations, as members of the Armed Services Committee, is to spend time with the military. I know the Senator from Oklahoma and the chairman do as well.

Their morale isn't good. They have seen sequestration take place, across-the-board cuts that have been done with a meat ax and not a scalpel.

All three of us would agree there are enormous savings that could be enacted in our Nation's Defense Department. We haven't even received an audit of the Defense Department. Year after year we demand that an audit be conducted by the Department of Defense by a certain year, and it has never happened.

We are not apologists. In fact, I believe the chairman and the ranking member have been zealous in their efforts to reduce waste, mismanagement, and duplication in the Armed Services and the Defense Department through their work on the Armed Services Committee.

The morale of our men and women who are serving is being harmed. It is not something that shows up in dollars and cents, but it does show up over time.

I say to the Senator from Michigan it does show up over time in their willingness to remain in the military. I was recently in Fort Campbell, KY, with the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander. We had an excellent briefing from the colonels, the generals, and the chief master sergeants of the U.S. Army.

Their unanimous view was that they believe we in the Congress of the United States are not taking care of them. They have always looked to us to provide them with the pay, the benefits, the housing, the equipment, and the training that is necessary to do their job.

They don't believe we are doing that anymore. They believe, when we enact sequestration with a meat-ax cut across the board--don't ask me about it. Ask General Odierno and the Chiefs who testified before the Armed Services Committee about the devastating effect of cuts to readiness, training, acquisition and, most of all, on the morale of the men and women who are serving. They literally don't know, some of them, what they are going to be doing the next day. The next day they don't know if they will be able to fly their airplanes, run their tanks or have the exercises that have been planned for months and even years. They don't know because we are almost day-to-day trying to apportion funds that are remaining in the most efficient and beneficial way.

I stand before my colleagues in the Senate and the two leaders in the authorization committee, and I am embarrassed--embarrassed--and a bit ashamed that we have done this to these good men and women who are willing to put their lives in harm's way to defend us. We can't even pass a bill that authorizes what they need to defend this Nation. It is shameful.

I wish to thank the chairman and ranking member for the hard work they have done on this legislation and the thousands of hours they have spent

on behalf of defending this Nation and the men and women who serve it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to echo what my colleague from Michigan Senator Levin said on the floor earlier today. He quoted the late Senator Arthur Vandenburg of Michigan who said, in 1949, that if the majority can change the rules at will ``then there are no rules except the transient unregulated wishes of a majority of whatever quorum is temporarily in control of the Senate.''

Senator Vandenburg's words from 1949 have proven to be prophetic.

Additionally, when he was a Member of the Senate in 2005, President Obama said ``What [the American people] don't expect is for one party-- be it Republican or Democrat--to change the rules in the middle of the game.'' That is exactly what his party did today--and they did so with the President's full support.

The American people will not be deceived--the Majority Leader's exercise of the ``nuclear option'' today is merely an attempt to divert their attention from Obamacare's failure to launch and the President's failure to keep his word to the American people on whether they can keep health care plans they already have. Republicans will, however, come together to maintain the American people's focus on these issues and on solving problems they are confronted with everyday--on health care reform, economic growth, runaway deficit-spending, and an unsustainable national debt that threatens future generations. Unfortunately, in his desperation to divert everyone's attention from Obamacare, the majority leader abused his position to decimate the integrity of the institution he is supposed to serve and continues to plunge this institution into a hopeless abyss of distrust and partisanship. These are circumstances that can be remedied by nothing less than a change in the majority in the Senate and its leadership. I remain dedicated towards achieving that outcome.

It is unfortunate we are in this position today. Numerous times over the years, the Senate has come to a standstill over nominees--whether they were judicial or executive branch. That gridlock inevitably leads to threats from the majority to use the ``nuclear option''--to change the rules of the Senate to strip the minority party of their right to filibuster certain nominees. I opposed using the nuclear option back when my party had the majority, and I oppose it today.

I think the Majority Leader made a huge mistake today.

Senator Vandenberg:

. . . I continue to believe that the rules of the Senate

are as important to equity and order in the Senate as is the

Constitution to the life of the Republic, and that those

rules should never be changed except by the Senate itself, in

the direct fashion prescribed by the rules themselves.

Senator Vandenberg continued:

I have heard it erroneously argued in the cloakrooms that

since the Senate rules themselves authorize a change in the

rules through due legislative process by a majority vote, it

is within the spirit of the rules when we reach the same net

result by a majority vote of the Senate upholding a

parliamentary ruling of the Vice President which, in effect,

changes the rules. This would appear to be some sort of

doctrine of amendment by proxy. It is argued that the Senate

itself makes the change in both instances by majority vote;

and it is asked, what is the difference? Of course, this is

really an argument that the end justifies the means.

Senator Vandenberg continued:

We fit the rules to the occasion, instead of fitting the

occasion to the rules. Therefore, in the final analysis,

under such circumstances, there are no rules except the

transient, unregulated wishes of a majority of whatever

quorum is temporarily in control of the Senate. That, Mr.

President, is not my idea of the greatest deliberative body

in the world. . . . No matter how important [the pending

issue's] immediate incidence may seem to many today, the

integrity of the Senate's rules is our paramount concern,

today, tomorrow, and so long as this great institution lives.

He concluded, with that ``one consideration'':

What do the present Senate rules mean; and for the sake of

law and order, shall they be protected in that meaning until

changed by the Senate itself in the fashion required by the

rules?

. . . [T]he rules of the Senate as they exist at any given

time and as they are clinched by precedents should not be

changed substantively by the interpretive action of the

Senate's Presiding Officer, even with the transient sanction

of an equally transient Senate majority. The rules can be

safely changed only by the direct and conscious action of the

Senate itself, acting in the fashion prescribed by the rules.

Otherwise, no rule in the Senate is worth the paper it is

written on, and this so-called ``greatest deliberative body

in the world'' is at the mercy of every change in

parliamentary authority.

According to CRS, proposals to limit Senate debate are as old as the Senate itself. Over the 224-year history of the body, numerous procedures have been proposed to allow the Senate to end discussion and act. The most important debate-limiting procedure enacted was the adoption in 1917 of the ``cloture rule,'' codified in paragraph 2 of Senate Rule XXII. Under the current version of this rule, a process for ending debate on a pending measure or matter may be set in motion by a supermajority vote of the Senate.

At times, Senators of both political parties have debated

the merits of the Senate's tradition of free and unlimited

debate. These debates have occurred at different times and

under different sets of circumstances as Senators attempted,

for example, to prevent filibusters of civil rights measures,

pass consumer protection legislation, or secure the

confirmation of judicial or executive branch nominations.

Although many attempts have been made to amend paragraph 2

of Rule XXII, only six amendments have been adopted since the

cloture rule was enacted in 1917: those undertaken in 1949,

1959, 1975, 1976, 1979, and 1986. Each of these changes was

made within the framework of the existing or ``entrenched''

rules of the Senate, including Rule XXII.

In 1949, the cloture rule was amended to apply to all

``matters,'' as well as measures, a change that expanded its

reach to nominations, most motions to proceed to consider

measures, and other motions. A decade later, in 1959, its

reach was further expanded to include debate on motions to

proceed to consider changes in the Senate rules themselves.

The threshold for invoking cloture was lowered in 1975 from

two-thirds present and voting to three-fifths of the full

Senate except on proposals to amend Senate rules. In a change

made in 1976, amendments filed by Senators after cloture was

invoked were no longer required to be read aloud in the

chamber if they were available at least 24 hours in advance.

In 1979, Senators added an overall ``consideration cap'' to

Rule XXII to prevent so-called post-cloture filibusters,

which occurred when Senators continued dilatory parliamentary

tactics even after cloture had been invoked. In 1986, this

``consideration cap'' was reduced from 100 hours to 30 hours.

At various times I have been a part of bipartisan groups of Senators who were able to come together and negotiate agreements to end the gridlock surrounding nominees, avert the nuclear option, and allow the Senate to move forward with our work on behalf of the American people. My work in these groups--often referred to as ``gangs''--has won me both praise and condemnation, and has often put me at odds with some in my own party.

In 2005 for instance, I joined 13 of my colleagues in an agreement that allowed for votes on three of President Bush's judicial nominees who were

being filibustered by the Democrats--who were in the minority at that time. Part of that agreement addressed future nominees. It stated:

``Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under

the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States

Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be

filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each

signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in

determining whether such circumstances exist.''

In January of this year I began working with like-minded members of both parties to diffuse legislative gridlock and to meet the goals of making it easier for the majority to bring legislation to the floor while also making it easier for a Member of the minority to offer amendments to that legislation. Having a robust amendment process, especially on legislation of major consequence, is how the Senate has traditionally operated. It is something that has been sorely lacking for the last several years. And it is something that, when it has occurred, has invariably led to legislative achievement.

And again in July of this year the Senate faced gridlock over the President's nominees to the National Labor Relations Board--NLRB. I joined with Members on both sides to come up with a reasonable compromise which allowed for votes of the President's nominees.

My colleagues in the majority are mistaken if they assume that these agreements have meant that we, the minority party, have surrendered our right to filibuster nominees in certain circumstances. The exact opposite is true. These agreements were negotiated precisely to protect the rights of the minority to filibuster nominations in good faith where the minority finds that doing so is warranted under the circumstances.

I am disappointed my colleagues on the other side have taken this step today. I would argue that our side, led by Senator McConnell, has been very accommodating in helping to secure cloture on numerous nominees. The fact that we have exercised our rights in several instances should not deter from that fact, and is certainly not deserving of this retaliatory action.

I have worked to end the stalemates over nominees, not for praise or publicity, but to retain the rights of the minority, and to help return the Senate to the early practices of our government and to reduce the rancor and distrust that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate. I fear that today's action by the majority will result in even more discord in this body.

Mr. President, the events and votes that took place today are probably as historic as any votes that I have seen taken in the years I have been here in the Senate.

The majority, with only majority votes--the same as ObamaCare passed with only Democratic votes--changed the rules of the Senate in a way that is detrimental, in my view, not only to the Senate, not only to those of us in the minority party, but great damage to the institution itself.

One of the men who served in this Senate for a long, long time, whom we respected as much or more than any other leader--he certainly knew the Senate rules more than any of the rest of us combined--was one Robert Byrd. Three months before his death, Robert

Byrd wrote this letter. Three months before his death, he said:

During my half-century of service in various leadership

posts in the U.S. Senate--including Minority Leader, Majority

Leader, Majority Whip and now President Pro Tempore--I have

carefully studied this body's history, rules, and precedents.

Studying those things leads one to an understanding of the

Constitutional Framers' vision for the Senate as an

institution, and the subsequent development of the Senate

rules and precedents to protect that institutional role.

This is important, I say to my colleagues.

He said:

I am sympathetic to frustrations about the Senate's rules,

but those frustrations are nothing new. I recognize the need

for the Senate to be responsive to changing times, and have

worked continually for necessary reforms aimed at modernizing

this institution, using the prescribed Senate procedure for

amending the rules.

However, I believe that efforts to change or reinterpret

the rules in order to facilitate expeditious action by a

simple majority, while popular, are grossly misguided. While

I welcome needed reform, we must always be mindful of our

first responsibility to preserve the institution's special

purpose.

Finally, at the end, he said:

Extended deliberation and debate--when employed

judiciously--protect every Senator, and the interests of

their constituency, and are essential to the protection of

the liberties of a free people.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter by Robert Byrd be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish Robert Byrd had been here on the floor today. I wish Robert Byrd had seen the travesty that just took place on a party-line vote. And when I use the word ``hypocrisy,'' I use it guardedly. I do not use that word with abandon. But this is another broken promise--another broken promise.

I read from an article entitled ``FLASHBACK: Reid in 2008: `As Long As I Am The Leader' We Will Not Have a Nuclear Option.''

Sen. Harry Reid said in a 2008 interview that as long as he

was the Senate Majority Leader, the nuclear option would

never happen under his watch.

``As long as I am the Leader, the answer's no,'' he said.

``I think we should just forget that. That is a black chapter

in the history of the Senate. I hope we never, ever get to

that again because I really do believe it will ruin our

country.''

He was talking about 2005 when this side of the aisle was in the majority and there was an effort--which we were able to diffuse--in order to do exactly what we did today. In 2008:

Reid railed against Republicans who fought for the measure,

saying it would lead to a unicameral legislature and that the

U.S. Senate was purposefully set up by the Founding Fathers

to have different rules than the House of Representatives.

Such a measure like the nuclear option, he said, would

``change our country forever.''

I am sorry to say, I agree with him.

I agree with what he said in 2008. Yet, on Thursday, on a nearly party-line vote of 52-48, the Democrats abruptly changed the Senate's balance of power.

Here is the full exchange I will read from.

Tom Daschle: What was the nuclear option, and what

likelihood is there that we're going to have to face nuclear

option-like questions again?

This is an interview that the majority leader had with the former majority leader Tom Daschle.

What the Republicans came up with was a way to change our

country forever. They made a decision if they didn't get

every judge they wanted, every judge they wanted, then they

were going to make the Senate just like the House of

Representatives. We would in fact have a unicameral

legislature where a simple majority would determine whatever

happens. In the House of Representatives today, Pelosi's the

leader. Prior to that, it was Hastert. Whatever they wanted,

Hastert or Pelosi, they get done. The rules over there allow

that. The Senate was set up to be different.

That was the genius, the vision of our Founding Fathers,

that this bicameral legislature which was unique, had two

different duties. One was as Franklin said, to pour the

coffee into the saucer and let it cool off. That's why you

have the ability to filibuster and to terminate filibuster.

They wanted to get rid of all of that, and that's what the

nuclear option was all about.

Daschle: And is there any likelihood that we're going to

face circumstances like that again?

Reid: As long as I am the Leader, the answer's no.

I repeat. He said, ``As long as I'm the Leader, the answer's no.''

I think we should just forget that. That is a black chapter

in the history of the Senate. I hope we never, ever get to

that again because I really do believe it will ruin our

country. I said during that debate that in all my years in

government, that was the most important thing I ever worked

on.

This gives new meaning as to where you stand on an issue as opposed to where you sit. This hypocrisy is not confined to Members of the Senate. Senator Barack Obama, former Member of this body, on April 1, 2005, for the benefit especially of our newer Members on the Democratic side who were not here at the time and do not know what we went through to try to stop it when it was being proposed by this side of the aisle, then-Senator Barack Obama said--who congratulated the Senate today on our action. He said:

The American people sent us here to be their voice. They

understand that those voices can at times become loud and

argumentative, but they also hope we can disagree without

being disagreeable.

Then-Senator Barack Obama went on to say:

What they don't expect is for one party, be it Republican

or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so

that they can make all of the decisions while the other party

is told to sit down and keep quiet.

I ask my colleagues, what were we just told to do today?

He went on to say that the American people want less partisanship in this town. But everyone in this Chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster:

If they choose to change the rules and put an end to the

Democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and

the gridlock will only get worse.

He went on to say:

Now, I understand the Republicans are getting a lot of

pressure to do this from factions outside the Chamber. But we

need to rise above the ends-justifies-the-means mentality,

because we're here to answer to the people, all of the

people, not just the ones that are wearing our particular

party label.

He went on to say:

If the right of open and free debate is taken away from the

minority party and the

millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear

that already partisan atmosphere in Washington will be

poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on

anything.

That does not serve anyone's best interests. It certainly is not what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind.

We owe the people who sent us here more than that. We owe them much more. There are several other--in May 2005, Senator Reid also said:

If there was ever an example of an abuse of power, this is

it. The filibuster is the last check we have against the

abuse of power in Washington.

We just eliminated the filibuster, my dear friends, on nominees.

Then he went on to say in April of 2005:

The threat to change Senate rules is a raw abuse of power

and will destroy the very checks and balances our Founding

Fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one

branch of government.

So, yes, I am upset. Yes, on several occasions we have gotten together on a bipartisan basis and prevented what exactly happened today. What exactly happened today is not just a shift in power to appoint judges. That, in itself, is something that is very important. But what we really did today and what is so damning and what will last for a long time, unless we change it, that could permanently change the unique aspects of this institution, the Senate, is if only a majority can change the rules, then there are no rules. That is the only conclusion anyone can draw from what we did today.

Suppose that in a few weeks the majority does not like it that we object to the motion to proceed: 51 votes. Suppose on cloture, they do not like having those votes for cloture: 51 votes. My friends, we are approaching a slippery slope that will destroy the very unique aspects of this institution called the Senate.

I believe the facts will show, as the Republican leader pointed out today, that this was a bit of a strawman. Yes, there have been a handful, a small number, of nominees who were rejected by this side of the aisle. But there have been literally hundreds and hundreds of nominees who have not even been in debate on the floor of the Senate.

All I can say is, when people make a commitment such as I just read from the President of the United States when he was in the Senate, from our majority leader, we should not be surprised when there is a great deal of cynicism about when we give our word and our commitment. I go back to the man I probably respected more than anyone in the years I have been in the Senate, one Robert Byrd. One thing I can promise you, if Robert Byrd had been sitting over in the majority leader's chair today, we would not have seen the events that transpired. This is a sad day.

I am angry, yes. We will get over the anger. But the sorrow at what has been done to this institution will be with us for a long time.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey.) The Senator from Alabama.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

As my friend from Oklahoma knows well--and, by the

way, I wish every American could have a chance to read this list of waste, fraud, and incredible misuse of Americans' tax dollars. But one of the areas not in this document that the Senator from Oklahoma and I have talked about is the issue of cost overruns in our weapons systems.

For example, the latest aircraft carrier which was just christened with great fanfare, the Gerald R. Ford, is now at a $2 billion cost overrun of what the original cost estimate was. That is for one ship. When I think about what the $2 billion cost overrun could do in my home State of Arizona, it is even more staggering. Yet somehow we let this cost overrun accumulate over a long period of time, and the ship still, by the way, was recently christened, which does not mean finished, commissioned.

At a hearing we had in the Armed Services Committee the other day where the effects of sequestration--which I think are devastating--were described by each of the service chiefs, the Chief of Naval Operations, my old service, said: We need $500 million more for the Gerald R. Ford. I was stunned. I said to him: Admiral, there is a $2 billion cost overrun on that ship. I asked him if anyone had been fired. His answer, I tell my friend from Oklahoma, was he didn't know if anyone had been fired over the cost overrun of over $2 billion, with a request for $500 million more.

The Senator from Oklahoma mentioned the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower so wisely spoke about. I would disagree. I think it is a military industrial congressional complex because never has Congress canceled a program once it has been in full production.

I ask my friend from Oklahoma, what do we do about what I think is the No. 1 cost right now in the Pentagon; that is, cost overruns. I could mention the $1 trillion F-35 and many other programs. What is to be done about that?

For years, I say to my colleague from Texas, the cost overruns went unchecked. When someone has a roof that leaks and they hire someone to fix the roof on a cost-plus contract, I guarantee that the cost to have your roof fixed will probably exceed the initial estimate the roof fixer provides you. When we go into cost-plus contracting, which is justified by many of the contractors saying, well, we are not sure what the additional costs will be, they do not seem to have difficulty once those contracts are fixed cost.

The best example--best or worst example--I can tell my friend from Texas is the original effort to replace Marine One, the Presidential helicopter. This helicopter, over a period of a couple of years, went from requirement to requirement to requirement, to the point where it was even a requirement that

the helicopter could withstand a nuclear blast. It ended up, before it was even off the drawing board, at a greater cost than Air Force One. At a greater cost than Air Force One. So finally they had the good sense to scrap it and we are still using the old reliable helicopter which seems to fairly suit the purpose of transporting the President.

Another interesting story was the Air Force now believes that one of their primary acquisitions has to be a long-range bomber. We are starting in this process again. At one point there was a proposal to put a kitchenette--I am not making this up--a kitchenette into the long-range advanced Air Force bomber. Finally someone decided maybe that doesn't look too good, to have a kitchenette on this airplane. But that is the case of what happens in the system we have today.

God knows the chairman Senator Levin and I and other members of the Armed Services Committee have gone time after time to try to bring these costs under control. I guess one of the favorite stories is of the famous Kelly Johnson of ``Skunk Works'' of the old Lockheed team. They went out in the desert of Nevada and came back 7 weeks later with the SR-71. Now it takes literally decades to come forward with a weapons system, and never once in recent years that I can recall has there been a weapons system on time and on cost.

Then you understand, I say to my friend from Texas, where the defense industry is so important and vital to the economy of his State, as it is with mine. The Apache helicopter, which I am very proud of, is built out in the east valley of Phoenix, AZ. But the American people then become cynical about defense spending. That really does erode our ability to sponsor and support those requirements that are so badly needed.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for all he has done to continue to bring this to the attention of the American people.

I want to make one additional comment about this medical research. There is not a person I know in America who does not support medical research. Particularly cancer is one of the big projects we appropriate money for. But it is the classic Willie Sutton syndrome. What in the world does the Defense Department have to do with cancer research? It is the Willie Sutton syndrome. They asked Willie why he robbed banks and he said: That is where the money is. So we are robbing Defense appropriations for programs and projects that have nothing to do with defense, but because the money is there we are spending it.

Meanwhile, we do not have, particularly as a result of sequestration, adequate funding, in my opinion, that will enable us to continue to defend this Nation.

All of us are for medical research. I do not know anybody in the world who is not. But for us to take money out of Defense appropriations and put it into medical research is something that is not any way justified except for the fact that the money is there.

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Maine for his very thoughtful statement. After having several conversations with him, I know he did not come to this decision easily, but I certainly think he made a very strong argument for the decision he arrived at.

He and I--and all of us--share a deep and abiding concern about the issue that is before the Senate in the form of the amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that is being debated on the floor. This is a very difficult situation. It is an unacceptable situation where men and women in the military may be exposed to sexual assault but, more importantly than that, the individuals who are responsible for those assaults need to be held accountable.

What we are asking today is: Are we going to hold the people who are in charge accountable for bringing offenders to justice or are we going to farm that responsibility out to some other entity, individual, or some other part of the bureaucracy? That is the question before us.

I trust these commanders. I have known thousands of them. I trust them, and I believe in them. Has there been an insufficient effort devoted to preventing these horrible crimes from taking place? Yes. I trust these commanders--these men and women in command--to take the proper action necessary because it is their responsibility.

The changes that are in this legislation include removing the ability of commanders to overturn jury convictions, require review of decisions not to reverse charges, criminalize retaliation against victims, provide a special victims' counsel to victims of sexual assault, and support and assist them through all their proceedings. That is why I supported Senator Boxer's amendment which reforms article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Her amendment will help prevent the abuse of victims of military sexual assault in a pretrial setting.

We are taking action in this legislation. Maybe we can be found guilty of not acting soon enough. Basically this deals with a fundamental question: Do we not trust the commanders--whose responsibility is the very lives of the men and women under their command--to do the right thing? That is the difference between the Gillibrand amendment and what has already been done in this legislation.

We have had extensive hearings, debate, and discussions on this piece of legislation. The question is: Do we trust the commanders to do the right thing within the proper parameters, such as removing the ability of commanders to overturn jury convictions, require review of decisions not to prefer charges, and criminalizing retaliation against victims?

As far as I can tell, we have taken significant and important steps that will protect our men and women not only from assault but the abuses and recriminations that may be visited upon them in cases where they are victims.

I am not saying the legislation before us will eliminate sexual assault, but I am saying that what we are doing is exactly what we did at other times when there were crises in our Armed Forces. I am referring back to the post-Vietnam war era. I was a commanding officer in 1975, 1976, and 1977, and we had racial, drug, and discipline problems. We had the post-Vietnam war syndrome where our military was in total disarray. We were dealing with drug abuse and racial discrimination. There were race riots on aircraft carriers.

What did we do? We placed the responsibility directly on the commanding officer, and if they didn't take action and failed, they were relieved. That is the way the military should function, and that is the way the military has functioned successfully. We had programs, advisers, indoctrination, and punishment--punishment for those who refused to adhere to the standards of conduct we expect every man and woman in the military to adhere to.

What does the Gillibrand amendment do? It removes the commander. It removes the person--the man or woman in command--who has the ultimate responsibility, unfortunately, from time to time of taking these young people into battle and risking their very lives. That is what makes them different from any other part of America and any other part of our society.

The Gillibrand amendment says we don't trust these commanders. Well, we trust those commanders with the lives of these young people. We ask them to have the ultimate responsibility, which is that of defending this Nation, but we don't trust them to prosecute and do their job and their duties? Well, that flies in the face of every encounter I have ever had with the men and women who were in command, and the senior petty officers, master chief petty officers, and master sergeants who are responsible for the good order and discipline of the men and women in our Armed Forces.

I won't go into the fact that this Gillibrand amendment includes matters such as burglary, perjury, robbery, and forgery. It has been expanded beyond belief in its areas that have to be referred out of the chain of command. I will not even bother with that.

I say to my colleagues as passionately as I can that if we do not trust the commanding officers who take our most precious assets--the young men and women of the military--into battle, then we obviously need to reevaluate our entire structure of the military. But I do trust them. The finest people I have ever known in my life are those who have worked their way up to positions of authority in command through a very severe screening process. Have they made mistakes? Can we find an example or a case where the right thing was not done? Of course we can. There is nowhere in our society where we can't find examples of people who have not done the right thing.

Today I am embarrassed that it seems naval officers were involved in some kind of bribery scheme about overseas ships. Sometimes we are embarrassed by leaders of our military, but they are the exception and not the rule.

If the Gillibrand amendment is passed, the message we will send to the men and women in command in the military is that we don't trust you and we don't believe in you. That is what this is all about. If we follow through with the 26 changes that have been made in the Defense authorization bill and ensure that if there is a wrong decision made in some cases, that decision will be sent all the way up the chain of command to the service secretary.

This is a terrific and horrific problem in our Armed Forces today. We have

done what we believe and what our military and military leaders believe is right--leaving the commanding officer in the decisionmaking process concerning the lives and welfare of men and women under their command. I hope we will realize that if we pass the Gillibrand amendment, our signal to the men and women in leadership--whether they are our senior enlisted personnel or our officers--is we don't have any confidence in you, and we don't trust you. That is the message we will send if we pass this amendment today.

Are they perfect? No. Have they made mistakes? Yes. That is why we put provisions in this bill which would circumscribe much of the decisionmaking process but still leaves final decisions in the chain of command.

I urge my colleagues to reject the Gillibrand amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have a letter from 38 retired flag and general officers of the U.S. military, and I quote from their letter:

As retired flag and general officers, we believe it is

imperative for Congress to address Guantanamo now. We have

always believed that our detention policies should adhere to

the rule of law, and that we as a Nation are more secure when

we do. Guantanamo is a betrayal of American values. The

prison is a symbol of torture and justice delayed. More than

a decade after it opened, Guantanamo remains a recruiting

poster for terrorists which makes us all less safe.

I would also point out for my colleagues that Guantanamo has cost more than $400 million in the last two fiscal years, and the Department of Defense estimates that is $2.7 million per detainee per year.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from which I just quoted.

While the Senator is on the floor, I wish to thank my colleague from Tennessee for this legislation and the hard work he has done on it. Also, there was significant pain and difficulties experienced by his constituents in Tennessee. This is something that I think will benefit all Americans and a rare bipartisan occasion in the Senate, which we should all celebrate. I thank my colleague from Tennessee.

First, I obviously wish to join all of my colleagues in welcoming back our dear friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, Jim Inhofe. We know he has gone through a very terrible family tragedy, and our thoughts and prayers continue to be with him and the members of his family. We are very happy to see him return, working and leading on this very important aspect of our work, the National Defense Authorization Act.

Today I will have filed an amendment on behalf of Senator Sessions and myself--Senator Sessions, as we all know, is the ranking member of the Budget Committee--to try to address the issue of this terrible effect on our defense establishment as a result of sequestration. Rather than go into the background of why it happened, the fact is that now in 2012, 2013, and into 2014, we see a continued decline in funding for national defense and then a rise, as it is currently planned. This is current law.

Obviously, it is not a rational approach because our defense business and people in the Pentagon do not plan on a day-to-day or week-to-week or month-to-month basis.

What this amendment does is it preserves sequestration--which I am opposed to--but the fact remains that in order to try to ease the burden of sequestration on our military, this would smooth out this dip that has taken place over an 8-year period until the expiration of current law in 2021, and next year and the years after for 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 it would give increases in spending and then reductions in those outyears and still achieve the same reductions in spending as dictated by sequestration.

The reason I say this is because we are looking at a dramatic impact on our military if we allow spending to go down to that level for 2014 before we start climbing back up.

What is happening to our military today? It has a large impact, it is disgraceful, and it is harmful. In this very unsettled world we live in, we are seeing unprecedented reductions and impact on our national security that we have not seen since the end of the Vietnam war.

Two weeks ago the Armed Services Committee held a hearing to understand how the sequester had impacted the Department of Defense. We learned, according to the Chief of Staff of the Army, GEN Ray Odierno, that continued sequestration along this line will cause the Army to end, restructure or delay over 100 acquisition programs. The Army, already drawing down by 80,000 Active-Duty troops, will be forced to reduce and eliminate an additional 60,000. The Guard and Reserve would also be forced to remove tens of thousands of men and women from their ranks. It amounts to an almost 20-percent cut in troop strength over the next 5 years and will result in an Army that has tens of thousands fewer soldiers than it had in 2011. Unit training has been curtailed such that by the end of 2014, if we go down this scale, General Odierno forecasts that only 15 percent of Army brigade combat teams will be fully ready in the event of a contingency.

The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Greenert, testified that sequestration means the Navy will operate more sparsely across the globe and be less able to reassure our allies that U.S. interests around the world are properly served. The Navy is the most visible sign of America's strategic deterrent, and we are putting that deterrent at risk.

The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Amos, said that because of sequestration, he was ``mortgaging'' long-term modernization to pay for keeping his marines trained and ready today, but he also said the plan is not sustainable. As equipment and facilities age, he won't be able to pay for their upkeep while simultaneously paying for training. What will give, unfortunately, is readiness.

As all the service chiefs testified, ``readiness'' means lives. The lower their readiness, the greater the risk to the lives of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in the event of a deployment.

The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen. Mark Welsh, told us that the Air Force had to ground 13 combat squadrons--had to ground 13 combat squadrons--because they lacked funding due to sequestration. Other squadrons' flying hours were cut in half. He warned that continued cuts to flying hours, which are a certainty under this present plan, will guarantee that many more squadrons will forego mission readiness in the coming years. General Welsh's least damaging plan to pay for sequestration is to cut some 25,000 airmen and 500 aircraft, almost 10 percent of the aircraft inventory.

Obviously, what is not reflected in these numbers is the impact on morale and retention. The Air Force is deeply concerned about the number of pilots it is losing to private industry. My colleagues may not know that there is a large exodus of airline pilots that will be leaving the airlines due to retirement in the next few years.

There is a recent story where a number of Air Force pilots were offered a bonus of $225,000 to remain in the U.S. Air Force and most of them turned it down. Why are they turning it down? It is because they are not flying, and they are not sure whether they are going to be flying.

We are cutting their flying hours to the bone. We are grounding entire squadrons. We are harming the morale and readiness of our military today in all of the services.

I provide those examples, but as one Air Force leader said recently: ``If you're not flying your aircraft because it's grounded, you might as well go fly something else.''

I provide these examples because it is important for us to understand that our actions in Congress are presently and materially degrading our military's ability to defend the Nation and protect our interests abroad. This is not an abstraction, especially at a time when international threats and instability are growing and not lessening.

I acknowledge there is a fatigue after more than a decade of war. Cutting the defense budget seems an easy way to ameliorate the Nation's dire budget problems, but such thinking is wrong.

I remember the troop cuts and the budget reductions after Vietnam. I remember that it took us 15 years to restore the military to the proficiency, capability, and professionalism that we have today.

Defense represents less than 20 percent of total government spending. We could zero out the entire defense budget and would still, with the growth of entitlement spending and the prevalence of tax loopholes, not be able to reduce the Federal deficit.

I have worked with colleagues for 2 years trying to address this issue. I have toured the country with Kelly Ayotte and Lindsey Graham and met with community and business leaders. I joined with our distinguished chairman Carl Levin and hosted a series of meetings with Senators to find common ground. None was to be found.

So here we are, with an obvious impact for next year of sequestration which would dramatically impact our ability to defend this Nation. In desperation, I am asking my colleagues to at least agree to smoothing out this path--which would end up with the same reductions in the spending but at least not hit this bottom level which would cause us to have planes that will not fly, ships that can't sail, and men and women in the military unable to train and operate. Once we reduce and impact operations and maintenance, readiness suffers, and readiness incapability only shows up over time.

I spent last Sunday with my friend Senator Alexander. The Senator from Tennessee and I were at Fort Campbell, KY, where we spent some time with the men and women who are serving in the military. We were briefed by the military leadership and the command master sergeants of the various units based at Fort Campbell, KY. We found that already the ability to train, the ability to retain, the ability to act with the kind of proficiency which is necessary in today's world is already being seriously degraded.

So I ask my colleagues, in working with Senator Sessions via the Sessions amendment, to consider this amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act so we can at least soften the blow, to some degree, of sequestration.

Senator Lamar Alexander and I were taken by the patriotism, the hard work, and the quality of the men and women serving our Nation in the United States Army at Fort Campbell, KY. Senator Alexander and I were both deeply alarmed at the fact that these people are literally having to budget and operate on a month-to-month basis. They are not able to sustain the level of readiness and capability that this Nation needs at this very difficult time.

So I urge my colleagues to consider this amendment that Senator Sessions will be sponsoring. I look forward to debating and hopefully passing this legislation to give our men and women the relief they need to serve this country with the patriotism and the efficiency we need in these difficult times.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the service and contributions to the State of Arizona and the Nation of James ``Bob'' Currieo. Bob spent his life serving our country as a soldier; a leader in the veterans community; and, for the last 17 years in my office, a valued advocate for constituents and veterans. Bob, 79 years young, retires this month.

Serving the residents of Arizona is one of the great pleasures of my office. When my constituents request assistance in matters dealing with the government, I try, as all my colleagues do, to move quickly to provide a fair and effective path for them to seek redress. And, in this regard, I have been lucky to have had a constituent-advocate of Bob's experience and caliber.

The experience that Bob brought to his working with me was informed by 22 years of service in the U.S. Army, retiring with the rank of sergeant major. Following decorated service in the Korean war, a fortunate assignment to the U.S. Army Combat Surveillance School at Fort Huachuca brought Bob to Sierra Vista and introduced him to a State that he would

quickly come to love and consider home.

I first met him in 1982 while he was serving as the newly elected National Commander-in-Chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. He was then, and remains today, a quiet but powerful force--a man whose soft- spoken words resonate among those around him. Despite his humble, modest demeanor, his talent for leadership and dedication to our Nation's veterans is immediately evident.

In 1984, Bob was invited by the State Department to join a U.S. delegation as an observer of El Salvador's first election in 50 years. I was also on that trip, and remember a long discussion we had about veterans and politics, two of Bob's interests. In 1986, I asked him to join my Arizona staff. Ever in demand, he departed for a period to serve as an executive in the VFW in Washington, DC, where I kept tabs on him. In 1996, Bob was ready to return to Arizona and I leapt at the chance to have him back on my staff.

From that time until just recently, he devoted himself to helping me work on behalf of veterans. On my many trips back home, as I checked in with Fort Huachuca, Davis Monthan, and our veterans communities, I always heard the same message, ``You are lucky to have a man like Bob Currieo on your team.'' I wholeheartedly agree.

In the nearly 20 years that Bob served in my office, he opened more than 8,000 cases. That is 8,000 servicemembers, veterans, military spouses and families who called out for help--calls that I am proud were answered on my behalf by a man as capable and caring as Bob. I thank him for his contributions to my team, his wise counsel, and his unwavering friendship.

As the late Coach Abe Lemons once said, ``The trouble with retirement is that you never get a day off.'' I know that my friend Bob won't face that dilemma--that he will remain active with the VFW and in his community as he embarks on the next exciting chapter of his life. I wish Bob and his wife Cecilia a long and happy retirement--filled with many joyful days and beautiful Tucson sunsets together.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to address the Senate as in morning business and that the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, be allowed to join me in a colloquy.

Mr. President, the administration's negotiations with Iran failed to achieve an interim agreement this past weekend, and if published reports are accurate, we owe our French allies a great deal of credit for preventing the major powers in the negotiations--the so- called P5-plus-1--from making a bad, bad, bad interim deal with Iran--a deal that could have allowed Iran to continue making progress on key aspects of its nuclear program and in return receiving an easing of billions of dollars in sanctions.

The Senator from South Carolina and I are not opposed to seeking an interim agreement with Iran as a way to create better conditions for negotiations on a final agreement. We joined with some of our colleagues in a letter to the President in support of such an approach before the Geneva agreement. But our support was conditioned on the need for any interim agreement to be based on the principle of suspension for suspension; that is to say, the Iranians would have to fully suspend their enrichment of uranium and the development of their nuclear weaponization programs and infrastructure, including construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak. The idea would be to freeze Iran's nuclear program in place so that negotiations could proceed on how to roll it back without the threat the Iranians could use negotiations as a delaying tactic.

I remind my colleagues they have done that time after time. In fact, the new President of Iran, Mr. Rouhani, bragged when he was negotiator that they were able to fool the negotiators and increase the centrifuges from 150 to 1,000. We have seen the movie before.

If Iran agreed, though, to this freeze, Senator Graham and I have said we would support suspension of our efforts to pass and implement new sanctions. Unfortunately, public reports suggest the administration was willing to agree in Geneva to less than a full suspension of Iran's program and to pay for that inadequate step with billions of dollars in sanctions relief. This is not ``suspension for suspension,'' regardless of administration claims to the contrary. And that is a problem. It puts too much trust in President Rouhani--the one whom I talked about before who bragged--he bragged--about deceiving the international community when he was Iran's nuclear negotiator. In fact, the current diplomatic efforts are consistent with a pattern of past dealings undertaken by the Iranian government to buy breathing space and shift international expectations in order to continue development of its nuclear program.

We have to avoid an interim agreement that diminishes Iran's incentive to make the hard decisions we ultimately need them to make as part of a final agreement, and that final agreement must require Iran to do the following: Comply with all outstanding U.N. Security Council resolutions; sign, ratify, and implement the additional protocol of the nuclear proliferation treaty; address outstanding concerns of the IAEA, especially through expanding inspection measures; halt construction on and ultimately dismantle the Arak heavy water reactor; stop development of advanced centrifuges; and turn its supply of enriched material over to the IAEA.

A final agreement should also not recognize that Iran has any inherent right to enrich. A country that has continuously been on the path for nuclear weapons, that has violated protocol after protocol, should not have the ``right to enrich.'' Without these measures, Iran's nuclear program will continue to grow. And as the program grows, it will be harder to track and harder to set back.

Only when Iran seriously undertakes measures to dismantle its nuclear program should sanctions be unwound. The administration should not weaken the strong negotiating position that Congress has helped create. Instead, it should use its position to its advantage.

Before I ask my friend from South Carolina to comment, I would add that we should not forget the context of Iran and negotiations with Iran. This is an arms control issue--the nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, we seem to ignore the fact that Iran is spreading terror throughout the Middle East and would like to throughout the world.

It is the Iranians who have armed and trained and equipped 5,000 Hezbollah, who are slaughtering people in Syria. It is Iran that sends the Iranian Revolutionary Guard into Syria and slaughters people. It is Iran that is supporting the Islamic extremist groups that are now moving seriously on the side of Bashar Assad into Syria. It is Iran that is spreading terror throughout the Middle East and would attempt to throughout the world. They still view the United States of America as the great Satan. They are still committed to ``wiping Israel off the map.''

Iran is a threat to peace in the world. And it is not only the issue of nuclear weaponry, it is their entire behavior of spreading terrorism throughout the region, propping Bashar Asad while he continues to slaughter, maim, rape, torture, and kill. And for this administration and this Secretary of State to ignore those facts about Iran, in my view, is disgraceful conduct.

Finally, before I turn to my friend from South Carolina, I would add that the influence and power of the United States throughout the world, especially in the Middle East, is no longer there. Every Middle East leader I talk to, everyone I know in the region, says they believe the United States is leaving, the United States is not in any way involved, and they are making accommodation for the absence of the United States leadership.

This President does not believe in American exceptionalism. America must lead or Iran, Russia, and other countries will lead, and sooner or later the United States will pay a very heavy price. We must not ignore the lessons of history. Several times in our history we have tried to withdraw the fortress America, and every time we have paid a very heavy price.

So I say to my friend from South Carolina, it is important, this Iranian issue, it is of transcendent importance, but I do not believe it can be viewed in a vacuum, considering Iran's continued effort to try to undermine and destroy everything--the freedom and democracy--for which American stands.

If my friend would yield for a question, the Senator from South Carolina and I have known the Prime Minister of Israel rather well over the years. Obviously, the first target of Iran, in the case of a nuclear weapon, would be Israel. Iran has never stepped back from saying that Israel should be wiped from the face of the Earth. Has the Senator from South Carolina ever known a time since the creation of the State of Israel that the United States and Israel have been further apart; that there has been more open disagreement and, indeed, tension at a level the likes of which we have never seen? And does it not appear by not including Israel in any of the negotiations, to start with, but also there seems to be a complete disregard of the knowledge, information, and frontline status of Israel in this whole issue?

And haven't the Saudis already basically let it be known if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon they will be right behind them?

May I ask, aren't the parameters of this proposed agreement to allow them to continue to enrich materials?

It is also true that the right to enrich is undercut by their many years' record of deception and efforts at acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Finally, again, I want to emphasize our Israeli friends are on the frontline. It is not the United States of America that the ayatollahs have committed to ``wipe off the face of the earth,'' that have been dedicated ever since the Iranian revolution to the extinction of the State of Israel.

So shouldn't we pay close attention? We aren't dictated by Israeli behavior, but shouldn't we profit from their experiences? Twice the Israelis have had to act militarily against nuclear facilities. Twice they have had to do that in order to prevent in one case Syria and another case Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons which would threaten them with extinction. Now this agreement, clearly, in the words of the Israeli Prime Minister, is something that is very dangerous to the very existence of the State of Israel.

Again, Israel does not dictate American policy, but to ignore the warnings of literally every expert in the Middle East--especially that of Israel, including Arab countries--I think is ignoring evidence and opinions that are very well informed. To get an agreement for the sake of an agreement, in my view, would be a disaster.

I appreciate the patience of my friend from Iowa, and I thank the Senator from South Carolina.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I will cast my vote in support of S. 815, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. This vote is consistent with my firm belief that workplace discrimination--whether based on religion, gender, race, national origin, or sexual orientation--should not be tolerated in America.

As my colleagues know, this legislation expands Federal employment discrimination protections, provided under the Civil Rights Act, to include sexual orientation. Under this bill, employers with more than 15 employees would be subject to new Federal regulations for hiring, firing, or promoting an individual on the basis of sexual orientation.

Many of my colleagues raised concerns about how the bill's language failed to provide adequate protections for religious businesses, schools, charities, and other institutions. In order to address these concerns, I worked with Senator Portman of Ohio and Senator Ayotte of New Hampshire to offer an amendment to further protect the constitutional rights and religious freedoms of religious organizations. Our amendment prevents retaliation on religious employers by Federal, State, and local governments based on the fact that these employers are exempt from the non-discrimination requirements of ENDA. I am pleased that this amendment was agreed to without opposition.

I have always believed that workplace discrimination--whether based on religion, gender, race, national origin, or sexual orientation--is inconsistent with the basic values that America holds dear. With the addition of the amendment I cosponsored with Senators Portman and Ayotte strengthening protections for religious institutions, I am pleased to support this legislation.

I will be opposing cloture on the nominations of Melvin Watt to be the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and Patricia Millett to be a U.S. circuit court judge for the District of Columbia Circuit. I do so because I believe that neither candidate should be affirmed by the Senate at this time.

I have been privileged many times to be a part of groups of Senators who were able to come together and negotiate agreements to end the gridlock surrounding nominees, avert the nuclear option, and allow the Senate to move forward with our work on behalf of the American people. My work in these groups--often referred to as ``gangs''--has won me both praise and condemnation and has often put me at odds with my party.

In 2005 when the Republicans were in the majority and we were about to exercise a nuclear option on President Bush's judicial nominees who were being filibustered by the other side that was in the minority, part of the agreement addressed future nominees, an agreement which has held all these years. I quote from the agreement:

Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the

Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution

in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under

extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his

or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether

such circumstances exist.

As to both of the nominees we are considering today, I find and it is my judgment as a Senator that extraordinary conditions exist. The agreements I have entered into, including to begin on the motion to proceed, including last July on the NLRB nominations, have all included preserving the right of individual Senators to exercise their rights.

If we go to the nuclear option--which I understand some of my colleagues are now frustrated to the point where they would like to-- meaning that 51 votes will now determine either nominees or other rules of the Senate, we will destroy the very fabric of the Senate; that is, that it requires a larger than numerical majority in order to govern.

I understand the frustration of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It is interesting that well over half of my colleagues in the Senate have been here less than 6 or 7 years. The majority of my friends on the other side have not been in the minority. The majority of my colleagues on this side have not been in the majority. I have been in both. When this side was in the majority, I watched how out of frustration we wanted to curtail the 60-vote criteria and go to 51 because we were frustrated over the appointment of judges. That was back in 2005. I watched my colleagues on the other side want to go to 51 votes because of their frustration over the motion to proceed. I have watched and understand the frustration the majority feels because they feel it is their obligation to make this body function efficiently.

The truth is, this body does not function efficiently nor was it particularly designed to. Is there more gridlock

than there used to be? In many respects, yes. And I believe with all my heart that what we just did to the American people in the shutdown of the government may motivate colleagues of mine on this side as well as the other side not to do this kind of thing again. Our approval rating with the American people has sunk to all-time lows and they are going to see another expression of gridlock when we take these votes today. But the cure is going to have repercussions for generations to come in this body.

There is no reason to have a House and Senate if we go to a simple 51-vote rule in this body. My colleagues should understand that someday--someday--this side of the aisle will be in the majority and this side of the aisle will feel frustration, as we did once before when we were in the majority because of blockage from the other side of the aisle.

I urge patience on the part of the majority leader. I urge patience on the part of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Most of all I urge the kind of comity between leadership on both sides and individuals on both sides.

I see the Senator from Virginia is here, and he has been one who has worked very hard to engender that in this body. Can't we work some of these things out without having a showdown on this floor every single time?

This dispute won't affect the American people. What we just did in the shutdown certainly injured the lives and well-being of millions of innocent Americans. Maybe we have learned from that, but I urge my colleagues to understand the votes being taken on these two issues are in keeping with the agreement I joined in with 13 of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, back in 2005. That agreement stated that ``signatories''--those who made the agreement--``will exercise their responsibilities under the advice and consent clause of the United States Constitution in good faith.''

In good faith. I am acting, with my vote, in good faith.

I see my friend the majority leader on the floor of the Senate, and I hope he understands this action is being taken in good faith. But I also understand the frustration my friend the majority leader feels. So I urge my colleagues, when we get through this, to sit down, have some more conversations and negotiations so we can avoid this kind of cliff experience which has earned us the strong, profound, and well-justified disapproval of the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, after 4\1/2\ years at top posts in the Pentagon, Dr. Ashton Carter announced last week that in December he will be stepping down as Deputy Secretary of Defense. On this occasion, I want to recognize Ash's many years of distinguished public service-- as a scholar, a professional, and a national leader. In so doing, I also thank him for his outstanding leadership of the 2.2 million uniformed and civilian members of the Department of Defense and his unwavering support of their most important mission.

Much can be said of Ash's scholarship. He graduated at the top of his class with honors from Yale University, earning degrees in medieval history and physics. His academic achievement also earned Ash a Rhodes scholarship, which sent him to Oxford University, where he received a doctorate in theoretical physics.

Much can also be said of Ash's dedication to public service. Before assuming his current position as Deputy Secretary of Defense, Ash ably served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and earlier under President Clinton as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. Throughout his tenure at the Pentagon, Ash received several Defense Distinguished Service Medals--the Defense Department's highest civilian award--as well as the Defense Intelligence Medal. Ash has also helped to promote the Nation's defense from outside the walls of the Pentagon through his service on the boards and committees of several defense, international security and counterterrorism organizations, as well as at some of the world's finest academic institutions.

In my view, what is just as important as what Ash has done is how he has done it. With regard to the Department's procurement practices, Ash articulated a cogent strategy to improve the Department's buying power and empowered good, talented people throughout the acquisition workforce who have long been concerned about government inefficiency to implement that strategy effectively. Indeed, it could be said that Ash's most significant legacy as the Pentagon's chief weapon's purchaser is that he has helped to force the Department to be as skilled in buying products and services as industry is in selling them. This achievement is perhaps best exemplified, for example, in the restructuring of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program; the successful award of a contract for an aerial refueling tanker; and making tough decisions on some very large, chronically poor-performing weapon procurement programs.

Finally, as Deputy Secretary of Defense, Ash has distinguished himself through his professionalism. Indeed, his commitment, skill, judgment, and temperament are reminiscent of those of some of the Pentagon's finest leaders. There can be no doubt that on many issues relating to defense and national security, Ash and I have had our differences. Some have been profound. But Ash has always conducted himself in a manner that appreciated the valid concerns underlying opposing views, while also mindful of the constitutional responsibilities of the elected officials who hold them. As a result, my working relationship with Ash has always been respectful, candid, clear, and productive. More importantly, it has been conducive to Congress and the Executive working together to address some of the biggest challenges to our national defense.

With this in mind, I join many in thanking Ash for his service and wishing him and his wife Stephanie fair winds and following seas. While Ash will move on from the Department in December, knowing his insatiable intellectual curiosity and his continuing desire to contribute, I suspect he will never be too far away.

Madam President, I think it is obvious we are seeing the end of this agonizing odyssey this body has been put through but, far more importantly, the American people have been put through. It is one of the more shameful chapters I have seen in the years I have spent here in the Senate.

But I wish to say that if there is a good outcome, it is the fact that 14 of us were able to join together--Republican and Democrat. Leadership, I must fully admit, was provided primarily by women in the Senate. I won't comment further on that.

Seriously, 14 of us got together and came up with a plan after very spirited discussion. I think that plan was probably better than the one we are going to act on today. But the fact is that this group of 14 people is committed to staying together to address other issues of importance and to tell the American people that there are at least 14 of us--and there are many others who wanted to join that group and who are welcomed to join that group--we are not going to let this kind of partisanship cripple this body and injure the American people.

I am proud to have worked with Members from both sides of the aisle. This isn't the last crisis we are going to go through, but I think we have the framework for the kind of bipartisanship the American people need and want. So I thank them. I look forward to working with them in the future. I also enjoyed the spirited discussions we had.

I wish to thank especially my friend from Maine, who enriched me with a small side wager we made during the course of this discussion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Connecticut.

In the last 24 hours a lot has been taking place. A tentative agreement has been reached between both Republican and Democratic leaders. The Speaker of the House has come forward with what we believe is a plan which would reopen the government, extend the debt limit, and has several other provisions in it.

The reaction to that has been immediate automatic condemnation by the majority leader, by the White House, and by Democrats in the House, absolutely rejecting this proposal.

I don't understand that. I don't understand that visceral reaction in a most negative fashion. Why don't we try something like we used to do around this place? Why don't we say: You have a proposal to open the government; we have a proposal to open the government. Let's both pass; let's go to conference--which we could do in 24 hours--and resolve our differences.

I understand what the polling data says, that 74 percent of the American people disapprove of the Republican handling of this issue. And I agree. Some of us at the beginning said we are going on a fool's errand to believe we will be able to defund ObamaCare. We got ourselves in a ditch, and we have to stop digging. That is well understood here by certainly the overwhelming majority of my Republican colleagues. But for the majority leader and the Democrats in the House and the White House to say absolutely, categorically, we will not consider what the Republicans in the House of Representatives are doing, in my view is piling on. It is piling on and it is not right.

I urge my Democrat colleagues: Let's sit down and work this out. We have a proposal from the House. We have a proposal between the two leaders. Let's get this resolved. To categorically reject what the House of Representatives and the Speaker is doing--and I think he is pretty courageous in what he is doing--in my view is not serving the American people.

So let's stop this. Let's stop it, sit down, consider the Speaker's proposal, get our proposal done, and then get this resolved, which we could do in the next 24 hours.

I came to the floor to express my disappointment in the categorical rejection of a good-faith effort by the Speaker of the House--which doesn't contain all the provisions I want. I am sure the agreement made by both the Senate majority and Republican leaders will not be everything I want. Let's stop the condemnation. Let's consider the Republican House proposal as a serious proposal, as a way to end this gridlock, and then let's sit down together and get this thing done.

I again urge my Democratic colleagues. We know you have the upper hand. Isn't it time we help find a way out of this--which is what the American people want--rather than who won and who lost. The only people losing right now are the people of this country. As I have mentioned a couple times before, Al Qaeda is not in shutdown.

I urge my Democratic colleagues and the White House to reconsider their categorical rejection of any proposal from the House of Representatives.

I yield the floor.