Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent to return to the normal one side and then the other side as far as speakers are concerned.

Madam President, I say to my colleagues, I bring to your attention two events today that I think deserve our attention. The first one is a story entitled, ``Grand Canyon food shortage turns dire.'' The St. Mary's Food Bank is set to deliver food boxes to Grand Canyon National Park today as a Federal shutdown strands thousands of employees inside the park without work and pay.

The Grand Canyon, thousands of people inside the park without food or pay. This great Nation, we are having to have charities deliver food to people who are trapped in the Grand Canyon.

Also today, ``Shutdown outrage: Military death benefits denied to families of fallen troops.''

At least five families of U.S. military members killed . .

. in Afghanistan over the weekend were given a double-whammy

by federal officials. Not only have your loved ones died, but

due to the government shutdown, you won't receive a death

benefit.

The approval rating of Congress we joke about, about being 12 percent or 11 percent. I have a line I use all of the time: We are down to blood relatives and paid staffers. But should not we as a body, Republicans, Democrats, no

matter who we are, should we not be embarrassed about this? Should we not be ashamed?

What do the American people think when they see that for those who served and sacrificed in the most honorable way, their families are not even eligible for death benefits? I am ashamed. I am embarrassed. All of us should be. The list goes on and on of people, of innocent Americans who have fallen victim to the reality that we cannot sit down and talk as grownups and address this issue.

I am not going to take the full 15 minutes because I frankly get a little bit emotional. But we started with a false premise on this side of the aisle that somehow we were going to repeal ObamaCare. That is after 25 days of debate, including up until Christmas Eve morning fighting against ObamaCare, and that is after a 2012 election where I traveled this country with passion, the first thing saying that the first thing we are going to do when Mitt Romney is President of the United States is repeal and replace ObamaCare. The American people spoke.

So somehow to think we were going to repeal ObamaCare, which would have required 67 Republican votes, of course, was a false premise and I think did the American people a grave disservice by convincing them that somehow we could.

Now, 70 percent of the American people, according to a Washington Post poll this morning, disapprove of Republicans, but they disapprove of Democrats as well. They disapprove of the President of the United States as well. Meanwhile, the Chinese, great role models of democracy, are now criticizing us because of a looming failure by the American Government to pay its debts, both domestic and abroad.

I say to my friend the majority leader, and he is my friend--we use that word with great abandon around here, but he and I have known each other now for 30 years--let's find a way to allow the adversary--I ask my good friend from Utah who is a history major, the words of Abraham Lincoln, ``Charity toward all, malice toward none.''

Let's find a way out of this. Let's find a way that we can sit down. I do not care if it is appointing people. I do not care if it is the informal conversations that we have been having back and forth. But there should be a way out of both of these dead ends that we are in.

How is this going to end? We know how it is going to end. We know how it is going to end. Sooner or later the government will resume its functions. Sooner or later we will raise the debt limit.

The question is, How do we get there? If there is anybody who disagrees that we are not going to reach that point, I would like to hear from them. So why don't we do this sooner rather than later? Why doesn't the Senate lead? I have great respect for the other side of the Capitol, but I understand the contradictions that are there and the difficulties the Speaker has. I am in great sympathy there.

So why don't we get together? Why don't we sit down and--look, this body voted 70 to 29, I think it was, to repeal the medical device tax. Do my colleagues want to renounce that vote they took on the budget? Why don't we use that as one of the areas where we could reach agreement? What about the issue out there the American people believe that we are under a different health care system than they are and ours is a better deal than theirs?

There are a number of issues that we could sit down and negotiate within an hour if we will stop--stop attacking each other and impugning people's integrity and honor. So all I can say is let's start this afternoon. I do not care who it is or how it is shaped, but let's sit down and get out of this, so that these families whose loved ones just died--just died--will receive the benefits at least that would give them some comfort and solace in this terrible hour of tragedy.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, will my friend from Tennessee yield for a question?

Has the Senator seen the polls of American public opinion about what we are doing here? Has the Senator had a chance to see that?

To all of us. To all of us.

To both sides of the aisle. And they do not understand, isn't it true, why we have not been able to come to some conclusion?

As the Senator from Tennessee just said, we now are going to have this merged into the debt limit.

The Senator from Tennessee has an extensive background in finance. Isn't it true that the world markets would react in a very, very severe fashion if we allowed the debt limit to expire?

May I ask just one more question of my friend from Tennessee.

We know that sooner or later the government will begin to function again--sooner or later.

Sooner or later we will address the debt ceiling because the United States is not going to renege on its debts.

It is going to meet its obligations. So we know those are facts. We know that at some point there is going to have to be a resolution. It is not going to go on forever. Nothing does. So if it argues for a solution, shouldn't we ask all parties to sit down and start discussions that the Senator and I and others have had kind of on an ad hoc basis, sort of, with people here and there and then conversations here and there, to start laying the groundwork?

I also want to point out that I think it is important that the President of the United States, rather than saying ``I will not negotiate with anybody under any circumstances,'' say ``I am willing to sit down and negotiate. I am willing to join with all parties in trying to find a way through this.''

We will sooner or later. The question is not whether we will solve these issues. The question really is--and I ask my friend from Tennessee--how much damage will be done before we solve it. Right now, there are people beginning to hurt all over America, and maybe it is not so bad right now, but it is going to get worse every single day that goes by. Frankly, I think we owe the American people more than that. Now, if somebody wants to blame me, fine. I will take the blame. If they want to blame the Senator from Tennessee, put the blame on him--on the President, on anybody. But shouldn't we remember what our duties are here?

I thank my friend.

Does the Senator yield the floor?

Madam President, I want to thank my friend from Tennessee, whose commitment to achieving solutions and resolution of this bitter environment in which we find ourselves is admirable. I am grateful for his participation and his leadership. I also thank my young, handsome colleague from Arizona, who also has had a many yearlong commitment to fiscal sanity and balance. I thank my colleagues.

Madam President, I come to the floor to talk for a short period of time about Syria, which is, although not dominating our conversation here--lead stories in both the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal are deeply disturbing.

First, I would like to point out that on the front page of the Wall Street Journal today there is an article titled ``Syrian Regime Chokes Off Food To Town That Was Gassed.'' I repeat: ``Syrian Regime Chokes Off Food To Town That Was Gassed.''

Government forces are tightening the noose around one of

the suburbs gassed by chemical weapons in August, raising

concerns of a fresh humanitarian crisis as residents forage

for olives, grapevine leaves and other basic foods.

Pro-regime fighters--

That is Bashar al-Assad's killers--

have encircled about 12,000 people, mostly civilians but

also including some rebel fighters, in the town of

Moadhamiya, according to local and international aid workers,

opposition activists and people interviewed on Monday in a

government-controlled section of the town.

This is a town that is strategically important to both sides because the flow of humanitarian and military aid flows through this particular area for those who are fighting in Aleppo and in Damascus.

The story goes on:

``We won't allow them to be nourished in order to kill

us,'' said a 24-year-old pro-regime paramilitary in the

government-controlled section. . . . ``Let them starve for a

bit, surrender and then be put on trial.''

These are the same people, apparently government forces, that are ``cooperating'' with us on chemical weapons, that are allowing inspectors to come in to gather the chemical weapons. So they have 12,000 people encircled, that they have already gassed, 1,400 of them, 400 children in the same town. So now they are going to starve them. Like the fighters said, ``Let them starve for a bit, surrender and then be put on trial.''

It is remarkable. An opposition activist inside the rebel-held side of the town who was reached by Skype said the situation is so dire now in the rebel-controlled area that people are subsisting on whatever they can forage locally, including olives, grapevine leaves, fresh mint, and figs.

So here we have the latest result of our wonderful and much heralded agreement on chemical weapons. They killed, in this town, 1,400 people, 400 of them children, with gas. Now they are going to kill 12,000 more with conventional weapons: bombs, guns, tanks, knives. Brutality and torture has characterized their behavior for a long period of time.

It seems to me it is a little bizarre. It is a little bizarre that we are hailing this cooperation from Bashar Assad on chemical weapons, and meanwhile the slaughter goes on: 110,000 dead, 1 million children refugees, the surrounding countries being destabilized, and, of course, the refugee camps are terrible situations to which we have not given the assistance that we should.

I urge all of my colleagues, if they had the opportunity, to visit one of these refugee camps and hear the stories of the murder, the gang rapes, the torture that is the official doctrine of Bashar Assad, not random acts of violence. The defectors from Bashar Assad's military will tell you that is their training and indoctrination and instructions.

So the second article today is from the Washington Post. ``CIA ramping up covert training program for moderate Syrian rebels.''

The CIA is expanding a clandestine effort to train

opposition fighters in Syria amid concern that moderate U.S.-

backed militias are rapidly losing ground in the country's

civil war.

But the CIA program is so miniscule that it is expected to

produce only a few hundred trained fighters each month even

after it is enlarged, a level that officials said will do

little to bolster rebel forces that are being eclipsed by

radical Islamists in the fight against the government of

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Here is the interesting part.

The CIA's mission, officials said, has been defined by the

White Houses's desire to seek a political settlement, a

scenario that relies on an eventual stalemate among the

warring factions rather than a clear victor. As a result,

officials said, limits on the agency's authorities enable it

to provide enough support to help ensure that politically

moderate, U.S.-supported militias don't lose but not enough

for them to win.

Picture these young people who are fighting in Syria today. The official U.S. policy is that they will provide weapons but only enough so they cannot win. Those people are being slaughtered. They are being murdered. They are dying. Some 110,000 have died. I am not sure how many of them were actual fighters. The official U.S. policy, according to the Washington Post, is that they want them not to win.

It is hard to motivate people to fight for a cause that we are not willing to help them win.

The agency has trained fewer than 1,000 rebel fighters this

year, current and former U.S. officials said. By contrast,

U.S. intelligence analysts estimate that more than 20,000

have been trained to fight for government-backed militias by

Assad's ally Iran

and the Hezbollah militant network it sponsors.

So we have trained 1,000. We are going to do about 100 a week, I guess, something like that. More than 20,000 have been trained by the Iranians, who are all in, and we expect them to be able to continue fighting.

The CIA is ramping up its effort . . . it was clear that

the opposition was losing, and not only losing tactically but

on a more strategic level.

Congressman Mike Rogers, whom I respect a lot, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said there is a--

. . . high degree of frustration . . . with the Syrian

strategy. The situation in Syria is changing faster than the

administration can keep up. U.S. support for moderate

opposition groups is less than robust and has been hobbled by

inconsistent resource allocation with stated goals.

CIA veterans expressed skepticism that the training and

weapons deliveries will have any meaningful effect. In

Jordan, operatives involved in training and arming rebels

lament that we're being asked to do something with nothing.

I would like to quote some articles:

``Al-Qaeda expands in Syria via Islamic State.''

A rebranded vision of Iraq's al-Qaeda affiliate is surging

onto the front lines of the war in neighboring Syria,

expanding into territory seized by other rebel groups and

carving out the kind of sanctuaries that the U.S. military

spent more than a decade fighting to prevent in Iraq and

Afghanistan.

We left Iraq. Iraq is now deteriorating. Thousands of people are being killed literally every month. Now we see Al Qaeda coming from Iraq in larger and larger numbers.

Finally, I would like to mention the Wall Street Journal article from some time ago:

``Iranians Dial Up Presence in Syria. Shiite Militiamen From Across the Arab World Train at a Base Near Tehran to Do Battle in Syria.''

At a base near Tehran, Iranian forces are training Shiite

militiamen from across the Arab world to do battle in Syria--

showing the widening role of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard

Corps in Syria's bloody war.

The busloads of Shiite militiamen from Iraq, Syria and

other Arab states have been arriving at the Iranian base in

recent weeks, under cover of darkness, for instruction in

urban warfare and the teaching of Iran's clerics, according

to Iranian military figures and residents in the area. The

fighters' mission: Fortify the Syrian regime of President

Bashar al-Assad against Sunni rebels, the U.S. and Israel.

So here is what we should take away from all this recent reporting: Despite the recent agreement on chemical weapons, that agreement does nothing to address the underlying conflict in Syria, which not only continues but is getting worse and worse.

So, my friends, as the administration trumpets this deal of chemical weapons, the fact is that the slaughter goes on. It is clear to these people whom I have spoken with personally, tragically their morale is badly damaged. They believe they have been abandoned. The ongoing tragedy and massacre continues in Syria. The United States will pay a very heavy price in the future unless we do something rather dramatic.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I won't take a lot of time here on the floor. The floor has been well used over the last day or so.

I would like to make sure my colleagues--especially those who were not here in 2009--understand that there are many of us who are opposed to ObamaCare, as it is called, or the Affordable Care Act. We mounted an opposition in 2009.

It is a matter of record that the Senate Finance Committee considered the Affordable Care Act over several weeks and approved the bill on October 13, 2009. At that time members of the Finance Committee submitted 564 amendments, 135 amendments were considered, 79 rollcall votes were taken, and 41 amendments were adopted.

Then the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee approved the Affordable Care Act by a vote of 13 to 10. After a month- long debate, 500 amendments were considered, and more than 160 Republican amendments were accepted. Then it came to the floor of the Senate.

The Affordable Care Act was on the floor for 25 straight days, including weekends, between Thanksgiving and Christmas of 2009. There were 506 amendments filed, 228 of which were Republican, 34 rollcall votes were held. Most of the rollcall votes resulted in party-line votes, including a motion which I had to commit the bill to the Finance Committee for a rewrite.

The final passage of the bill--because of our insistence in exercising every reasonable parliamentary procedure we could--took place on Christmas Eve of 2009, much to the discomfort of many of my colleagues. We fought as hard as we could in a fair and honest manner, and we lost. One of the reasons we lost was because we were in the minority. In democracies the majority almost always governs and passes legislation.

I was extremely proud of the effort that we on this side of the aisle made to attempt to defeat what we thought was a measure that was not good for America. I think it was an interesting and educational debate.

I see my friend from Illinois is here. On several occasions he and I had debates on the floor of the Senate, in which, of course, I won every one.

The fact is this legislation was hard fought and went through the legislative process. I didn't like the end of it, but I am proud of the effort we made and, frankly, the other side of the aisle allowed that debate to take place. We finally finished up on December 24, 2009, at 7:05 a.m. So to somehow allege that many of us haven't fought hard enough does not comport with the actual action that took place on the floor of the Senate.

Many of those who are in opposition right now were not here at the time and did not take part in that debate, and I respect that. But I would like to remind them that the Record is very clear that this was one of the most hard-fought and fair, in my view, debates that has taken place on the floor of the Senate in the time I have been here.

Then I would remind my colleagues that in the 2012 election, ObamaCare, as it is called--and I will be more polite, the ACA--was a major issue in the campaign. I campaigned all over America for 2 months everywhere I could,

and in every single campaign rally, I said: We have to repeal and replace ObamaCare. Well, the people spoke. They spoke, much to my dismay, but they spoke and reelected the President of United States.

That doesn't mean that we give up our efforts to try to replace and repair ObamaCare, but it does mean that elections have consequences and those elections were clear in a significant majority. The majority of the American people supported the President of the United States and renewed his stewardship of this country.

I don't like it. It was not something that I wanted the outcome to be, but I think all of us should respect the outcome of elections which reflects the will of the people.

We just went through a long many-hour--I can't call it a filibuster because a filibuster is intended to delay passage of legislation. There was no doubt that there was a time certain that time on the floor would have to expire. So I guess the kindest depiction I can say is that there was an extended oratory that took place for many hours on the floor of the Senate, which is the right of any Senator to do. I respect that right, and obviously the longevity of the discussion was something that was certainly admirable. But during the course of that discussion conducted by my friend from Texas, he said:

If you go back to the 1940s, Nazi Germany. Look, we saw in

Britain, Neville Chamberlain, who told the British people,

``Accept the Nazis. Yes, they'll dominate the continent of

Europe, but that's not our problem. Let's appease them. Why?

Because it can't be done. We cannot possibly stand against

them.''

Then he went on to say:

I suspect those same pundits who say it can't be done, if

it had been in the 1940s we would have been listening to them

. . . and they would have been saying, ``You cannot defeat

the Germans.''

I resoundingly reject that allegation. That allegation, in my view, does a great disservice for those brave Americans and those who stood up and said: What is happening in Europe cannot stand. When the ship was turned back and the passengers on that ship were sent directly to the gas chambers, when Czechoslovakia fell and the slaughter continued, there were many who raised their voices. Then there were those who went to war because of the barbaric and great threat to civilization and everything we stand for. Amongst them were my father and grandfather.

I do not agree with that comparison. I think it is wrong, and I think it is a disservice to those who stood and shouted at the top of their lungs that we cannot appease and that we must act and we did act. It is a disservice to those who did act.

I spoke to Senator Cruz about my dissatisfaction about his use of this language, and he said he only intended it to be applied to pundits and not to Members of the Senate. I find that a difference without a distinction. I find that something that I think I had to respond to.

I do not begrudge Senator Cruz or any other Senator who wants to come and talk as long as they want or as long as they can, depending on the rules of the Senate, but I do disagree strongly to allege that there are people today who are like those prior to World War II who didn't stand and oppose the atrocities that were taking place in Europe.

I have an open and honest disagreement with the process of not agreeing to move forward with legislation, which I agree with, that was passed through the House of Representatives. Comparing that to those who were the appeasers, as Senator Cruz described them, is an inappropriate place for debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

I thank my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, on September 11 we came together as a country on the National Day of Service and Remembrance to honor those lives lost on that tragic day 12 years ago and celebrated the bravery and commitment of our men and women in uniform. As our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines continue to defend our freedom and security abroad, Americans back home have also been stepping forward to serve their communities and country.

Last week brought the 20th anniversary of the signing of legislation that created AmeriCorps. With that goal in mind, I rise to speak in honor of the men and women in civilian national service who have sacrificed their time and energy to serve our country by strengthening our communities. We honor them for their commitment and hold them as shining examples for rising generations.

Over the last two decades more than 820,000 AmeriCorps members have quietly and selflessly given in total more than 1 billion hours of service to our country. In Arizona alone more than 15,000 residents have served more than 16 million hours and have earned Segal AmeriCorps Education Awards totaling nearly $37 million. They have mentored and tutored schoolchildren, helping students stay on track with their education and having a chance at a better future. They have helped communities recover from devastating natural disasters, supported military families, and helped veterans overcome the stress of a decade of conflict and reintegrate back into civilian life. They have worked in our national parks and on our public lands that preserve the story of America for future generations, and they have done so much more.

For their dedication and service they receive a modest living allowance and an education award that can keep the dream of a college education within reach. They have also earned my respect and the admiration of citizens around the country.

As we reflect on the dedication of those who have served, we must also ask ourselves what more can we do to give more young Americans the opportunity to follow in their footsteps. As the Franklin Project at the Aspen Institute has called for, we should make a year of national service, whether military or civilian, a right of passage for all young Americans. We should expand AmeriCorps service positions, as we called for in the bipartisan Serve America Act that we passed nearly 5 years ago. We should strengthen partnerships with Federal departments and agencies to use national service as a cost-effective strategy to meet their missions, and we should work with the private sector, from corporations and philanthropic organizations to higher education and faith-based institutions, to support the creation of service opportunities and to recognize the contributions of those who serve.

We should also continue to remain engaged throughout the world by, among other things, fulfilling the promise of the Peace Corps. At its founding, America started with a grand notion, the recognition that all men are created equal and that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights that must be protected. But recognizing there are those among us and common causes greater than our own self-interests that require our attention and care, the Declaration of Independence also emphasized `` . . . we mutually pledge to one another our Lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor.'' Benjamin Franklin likewise talked about creating a ``Republic, if you can keep it,'' and created a corps in Philadelphia through which citizens could serve their community. John Adams likewise spoke of how the duty to serve our country ended but with our lives.

Throughout history, Presidents of both parties put into place initiatives that put our people into productive service to our Nation. Examples include Franklin Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps, John Kennedy's Peace Corps, Lyndon Johnson's VISTA Program, Richard Nixon's Senior Corps, George H.W. Bush's Points of Light, Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps, George W. Bush's USA Freedom Corps, and, more recently, the passage of the Serve America Act, which reauthorizes and expands national service programs.

Congress should step up. With so much division and discord throughout the country, national service can help bring our country closer together. Drawing from lessons learned from programs of the past, a renewed commitment to national service by this body can unleash the ingenuity of the American people and their desire to contribute to causes greater than themselves. It can channel the energy of the institutions of civil society to get our country moving again. Think of it: Passionate, engaged young people from all backgrounds and regions across the Nation tackling our toughest challenges in education, poverty, conservation, health, disaster response, reintegrating veterans, and more in a truly enduring way.

In my view, nothing else binds us better and has us move forward as a nation more effectively than service to our Nation, particularly service designed to improve lives and strengthen communities. For this reason, my vision for civilian national service is worth more than our aspirations. It deserves our commitment to achieving it.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I honor a superb leader, aviator, and American. After more than 33 years of service to a grateful nation, RADM Mark D. Guadagnini is retiring from the United States Navy and his position as the Director of U.S. Fleet Forces Command's Maritime Headquarters. On this occasion, I believe it is fitting to recognize Rear Admiral Guadagnini's years of distinguished service and dedication to fostering the relationship between the military and this Chamber.

Rear Admiral Guadagnini is a 1980 distinguished graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. Over the course of his career, he participated in six combat Operations, including Desert Storm, Provide Comfort, Deliberate Force, Southern Watch, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom, accumulating almost 5000 hours of flight time and accomplishing nearly 100 combat missions. He has led at the highest levels of operational aviation command at Strike Fighter Attack Squadron 15, Carrier Air Wing 17, and Carrier Strike Group NINE.

In addition to his impressive accomplishments at sea, he was also one of our most well-rounded officers, serving as a test pilot, flag aide, fleet staff officer, manpower distribution officer, a Capitol Hill liaison, and, not coincidentally, as one of my first and best legislative fellows 20 years ago. While in the flag ranks, Rear Admiral Guadagnini leveraged his expertise serving as the chief of Naval Air Training; head of Human Resouces for the Naval Aviation Enterprise; Deputy Commander for Fleet Management at U.S. Fleet Forces Command, and lastly, as the director of Maritime Headquarters at U.S. Fleet Forces Command.

I could not be prouder of the accomplishments that ``Guad'' has earned while wearing the uniform of the world's greatest fighting force. His impact, particularly in the aviation community, will continue well into the future and our navy and nation will feel his absence. I wish him and his whole family ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. President, will the Senator respond to a question? How is the time going to be allocated?

May I ask the time situation?

Does the Senator from Kentucky wish to respond?

Madam President, I think it is important in the context of this amendment on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill that we put into focus what this amendment is really affecting. It is affecting the most important nation in the Arab world, the heart and soul of the Arab world, Egypt. All countries in the Middle East are important, but Egypt is the most important.

In Egypt today there are demonstrations, there are scores of people being killed, hundreds being wounded. This Friday, only 2 days from now, after prayers, there are predictions that there could be even more carnage that will take place as a result of the pro-Morsi people taking to the streets of Cairo and other cities throughout Egypt.

I think we ought to consider this amendment in the context of what is happening in arguably the most important nation in the Arab world. Should we ask ourselves that at this point without adequate hearings, without adequate discussion, without input from the administration, as well as the oversight responsibilities by the Foreign Relations Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Armed Services Committee, all of whom, chairmen and ranking members, are opposed to this amendment?

First, I caution against a rush to judgment on this issue. It requires, frankly, more than 1 hour equally divided of debate on the floor of the Senate.

I would also like to point out this amendment is part of a larger debate that has been going on in the Republican Party for well over a century. Prior to World War I, there was the isolationist wing of our party. After World War I in the 1930s, there were the America Firsters. After World War II, there was the Eisenhower wing of our party and the Taft wing. The debate has gone on for the heart and soul of the Republican Party.

This debate and this amendment that is posed by my friend from Kentucky is part of that overall debate as to what the role of the United States should be in the world. Should we take our money from Egypt and give it to build a bridge in Kentucky? Should we take our foreign aid and cut it to the point to where we no longer have influence in these countries throughout the world and spend it on much needed projects that are the result of a very ailing and still serious recession in which we still remain?

I think the vote on this amendment has even larger implications than that of whether we should cut off all assistance to Egypt. By the way, my friends, I don't think it is an accident that APAC, our friends there who represent the interests of the State of Israel, have opposed this amendment. If there is further upheaval in the Sinai, and if there is a collapse of the rule of law in Egypt, I don't think there is any doubt that the threat to Israel is dramatically increased.

I made it clear, and so has my friend from South Carolina, that it was a coup. It was a coup and our law calls for that. But that is an implementation of a law that needs to be done in a way that is in consultation with the Foreign Relations Committee, the Appropriations Committee, and, in fact, all Members of the Senate.

I think it is important for us to send a message to Egypt that we are not abandoning them, but what we are doing is trying to caution them to try to modify their behavior, to tell General Aziz that he has to have an inclusive government, he has to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to partake in the upcoming elections, and the Muslim Brotherhood has to be told that they have to renounce violence.

Right now Egypt is spiraling down into a situation of chaos, which I can promise my colleagues will sooner or later pose a threat to our vital national security interests. The most important nation in the Arab world descending into chaos is going to be a threat to the United States of America.

I urge my colleagues--and I urge my friend from Kentucky, with respect--to realize this amendment would send the wrong message at the wrong time. It may be coincidental, but this Friday is going to be an important day in Egypt. Should we be sending the message to the Egyptians: OK, you are on your own?

Yes, other countries in the region are contributing enormously to the Egyptians without conditions. But the support or condemnation of the United States of America, the best, most free, and still most influential Nation in the world, is of vital importance. At this time, I think it would be a terrific mistake for the United States to send the message to Egypt: You are on your own.

I hope we understand that it is not about U.S. foreign assistance; it is about what serves our interests and our values. This, my friends, is a debate that we need to have over the weeks, months, and years ahead in, probably, one of the best places to have that debate.

I urge my colleagues, no matter how they feel about assistance to Egypt, that we are committed. I urge them to appreciate that we are committed to a long debate about this issue.

I have confidence in the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee that we will be addressing this issue seriously. The Senator from Kentucky is a member and would certainly take part.

I urge my colleagues to understand that an amendment on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development-led appropriations bill is not the venue. We need to have this debate not only about Egypt but America's role in the world. I look forward to joining him, but today is not the day to take a step that could have repercussions over time that will damage the vital national security interests of the United States.

I urge my colleagues to vote to table the Paul amendment.

I yield.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Ronald Reagan used to say facts are stubborn things. The Senator from Kentucky just said Egypt has no money. Isn't it a fact the Gulf countries and the Saudis have just given them $13 billion?

Again, isn't the question whether the Senator from Kentucky knows what is better for Israel or Israel knows what is better for Israel? The fact is, AIPAC and the Israelis are adamantly opposed to this amendment; isn't that correct?

Mr. President, as we prepare to head out for the August recess, I have returned to the floor today to speak, once again, about the horrific and worsening situation in Syria--a conflict that, we learned this week, has now claimed 100,000 lives.

I would like to take a few minutes to read from a remarkable statement that was delivered on Monday by Mr. Paulo Pinheiro, the chair of the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria. The excerpts I wish to read are long, but they are shocking, and worth quoting in full.

Here is the assessment Mr. Pinheiro gave to the U.N., and I quote:

Syria is in free-fall. Relentless shelling has killed

thousands of civilians and displaced the populations of

entire towns. An untold number of men and women have

disappeared while passing through the ubiquitous checkpoints.

Those freed from detention are living with the physical and

mental scars of torture. Hospitals have been bombarded,

leaving the sick and wounded to languish without care. With

the destruction of thousands of schools, a generation of

children now struggle to obtain an education. The country has

become a battlefield. Its civilians are repeatedly victims of

acts of terror.

Mr. Pinheiro concludes with this powerful plea for action:

That civilians should come under such sustained unlawful

attacks should shock your conscience and spur you to action.

But it has not. As the conflict drags on, you--and the

world--have become accustomed to levels of violence that were

previously unthinkable . . .

It is time for the international community to act

decisively. There are no easy choices. To evade choice,

however, is to countenance the continuation of this war and

its many violations . . . The world must hear the cry of the

people--stop the violence, put an end to this carnage, halt

the destruction of the great country of Syria!

Again, this is not my assessment; it is that of a senior United Nations leader. And I applaud Mr. Pinheiro for his moral leadership on behalf of the Syrian people. At the same time, I say with the utmost respect that I disagree with Mr. Pinheiro's counsel for what is required to achieve the goal we share, which is to create conditions that favor a negotiated end to the conflict in Syria. I continue to believe that, while there is not a purely military solution to the conflict in Syria, I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that military intervention by the United States and our allies must be a critical part of the solution we seek. Indeed it is unrealistic to think we can arrive at a diplomatic solution otherwise.

Let's be absolutely clear about the realities in Syria today and where this conflict is headed. Asad is never going to negotiate himself out of power or seek to end the conflict diplomatically so long as he believes he is winning on the battlefield, and right now, he clearly has the advantage on the ground. This is thanks, in critical part, to his air power, which not only allows Asad to pound opposition military positions and civilian populations--including with chemical weapons, which nearly everyone believes he has used and will use again--but also to move his troops and supplies around the battlefield in ways that he cannot do on the ground.

Asad's growing military advantage is also thanks to the influx of thousands of Hezbollah fighters who are leading offensives in key parts of the country, Iranian special forces who are training and advising Asad's troops and private militias, Shia militants from Iraq and Lebanon, as well as a steady and decisive flow of weapons and other assistance from Iran and Russia, which is being brought into Syria with impunity, including through overflights of Iraq.

The consequences of this onslaught for Syria are bad enough. The strategically vital city of Homs is expected to fall imminently, which would be a major victory for Asad that would strengthen his position immeasurably. The consequences for the region, however, are arguably worse. Syria's main export today is its civilian population, which is flooding into Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan, by the hundreds of thousands. Indeed, 15 percent of Jordan's population is now Syrian refugees, and the fourth largest city in the country is now a Syria refugee camp.

At the same time, Syria's primary import today seems to be foreign extremists from all across the region and indeed the world. It is well known from estimates in published reports that as many as several thousand people from all across the Middle East have moved into Syria to fight with Al Qaeda and other extremist groups. But, in addition, the New York Times reported this week that Western counterterrorism and intelligence officials now believe that hundreds of Muslims from Western countries have joined the fight in Syria, including 140 French, 75 Spaniards, 60 Germans, a few dozen Canadians and Australians, as well as fighters from Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands. As many as a dozen Americans are believed to be among them. It is difficult to conclude that Al Qaeda does not enjoy safe haven in Syria today, and no one should believe that it won't be used eventually to launch attacks against us.

Make no mistake, this is where we are headed. Syria is becoming a failed state in the heart of the Middle East and a safe haven for Al Qaeda and its allies. It is becoming a regional and sectarian conflict that threatens the national security interests of the United States. And it is becoming the decisive battleground on which Iran and its allies are defying the United

States and our allies and prevailing in a test of wills, which is fundamentally undermining America's credibility among both our friends and enemies throughout the region and the world.

Some may see this as an acceptable outcome. I do not.

I know Americans are war weary. I know the situation in Syria is complex, and there are no easy answers. That said, all of us must ask ourselves one basic question: Are the costs, and risks, and potential benefits associated with our current course of action better or worse than those associated with America becoming more involved militarily in Syria? I believe our current course of action is worse, because it virtually guarantees all of the bad outcomes that are unfolding before our eyes and getting worse and worse the longer this conflict grinds on.

Now, some would have us believe that military action of even a limited nature is too cost intensive, too high risk, and too marginal in its potential impact in Syria. In a letter dated July 19, 2013, to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and myself, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Martin Dempsey, described the requirements to conduct various military options in Syria. He spoke of scenarios that would demand hundreds of military assets and thousands of special forces to resource military options that no one is seriously considering.

Now, in my many years, I have seen a lot of military commanders overstate what is needed to conduct military action for one reason or another. But rarely have I seen an effort as disingenuous and exaggerated as what General Dempsey proposed.

The option that many of us have proposed is limited standoff strikes to degrade Asad's air power and ballistic missile capability. But here is General Dempsey's description of what would be needed to conduct ``limited standoff strikes'':

Potential targets include high-value regime air defense,

air, ground, missile, and naval forces as well as the

supporting military facilities and command nodes. Stand-off

air and missile systems could be used to strike hundreds of

targets at a tempo of our choosing. Force requirements would

include hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines, and other

enablers. Depending on duration, the costs would be in the

billions.

This is a completely disingenuous description of both the problem and the solution. No one is seriously talking about striking Asad's naval forces as part of a limited campaign. And no one seriously thinks that degrading Asad's air power would require hundreds of American military assets. The whole thing is completely misleading to the Congress and the American people, and it is shameful.

For a serious accounting of a realistic limited military option in Syria, I would strongly recommend a new study that is being released today by the Institute for the Study of War, or ISW, which was overseen by GEN Jack Keane, the author of the surge strategy that enabled us to turn around the war in Iraq. This new study confirms what I and many others have long argued: That it is militarily feasible for the United States and our friends and allies to significantly degrade Asad's air power at relatively low cost, low risk to our personnel, and in very short order--and to do so, I want to stress, without putting any U.S. boots on the ground.

Specifically, the ISW study reports that Asad's forces are only flying a maximum of 100 operational strike aircraft at present, an estimate that ISW concedes is likely very generous to the Asad regime. The real figure, they maintain, is more likely around 50. What is more, these aircraft are only being flown out of 6 primary airfields, with an additional 12 secondary airfields playing a supporting role. What this means is that the real-world military problem of how to significantly degrade Asad's air power is very manageable--again, as I and others have maintained.

ISW calculates that U.S. and allied forces could significantly degrade Asad's air power using standoff weapons that would not require one of our pilots to enter Syrian airspace or confront one Syrian air defense system. With a limited number of these precision strikes against each of Asad's eight primary airfields, we could crater their runways, destroy their fuel and maintenance capabilities, knock out key command and control, and destroy a significant portion of their aircraft on the ground. The ISW study estimates that this limited intervention could be achieved in 1 day and would involve a total of 3 Navy surface ships and 24 strike aircraft, each deploying a limited number of precision-guided munitions--all fired from outside of Syria, without ever confronting Syrian air defenses.

This should not come as a surprise. After all, hitting static targets from a distance is what the U.S. military does best. And hitting static targets in Syria, without ever confronting Syrian air defenses inside of Syrian airspace, is something that our Israeli allies now seem to have done on several occasions. Surely we can too.

There are other things we should do in conjunction with targeted strikes against Asad's air power. We could expand the list of targets to include Asad's ballistic missiles, as well as key regime command- and-control sites. This would be an equally minimal number of targets that could be hit with the same standoff weapons. We should also stand up a far larger train-and-equip operation than what published reports suggest has been authorized to date. What all of the Syrian opposition leaders have told me their forces need most of all is antitank weapons that can destroy Asad's artillery and armor, which would remain a major threat even if we significantly degrade Asad's air power. We should give the Syrian opposition these kinds of capabilities to level the playing field themselves.

If we were to do all of these things--degrade Asad's air power and ballistic missiles and train, equip and advise the opposition on a large scale--it probably would not end the conflict in Syria immediately. But it could turn the tide of battle against Asad's forces and in favor of the opposition, and begin to create conditions on the ground that could make a negotiated end to the conflict possible.

We cannot afford to lose the moral dimension from our foreign policy. If ever a case should remind us of this, it is Syria. Leon Wieseltier captured this point powerfully in The New Republic last month. His words are as true today as they were then, and I quote:

The slaughter is unceasing. But the debate about American

intervention is increasingly conducted in ``realist'' terms:

the threat to American interests posed by jihadism in Syria,

the intrigues of Iran and Hezbollah, the rattling of Israel,

the ruination of Jordan and Lebanon and Iraq. Those are all

good reasons for the president of the United States to act

like the president of the United States. But wouldn't the

prevention of ethnic cleansing and genocidal war be reason

enough? Is the death of scores and even hundreds of

thousands, and the displacement of millions, less significant

for American policy, and less quickening? The moral dimension

must be restored to our deliberations, the moral sting, or

else Obama, for all his talk about conscience, will have

presided over a terrible mutilation of American discourse:

the severance of conscience from action.

We have had these debates before. In Bosnia, and later in Kosovo, we heard many arguments against military intervention that we now hear about Syria. It was said that there was no international consensus for action, that the situation on the ground was messy and confused, that it was not clear who we would actually be helping, and that our involvement could actually make matters worse. Fortunately, we had a President who led--who explained to the American people what the stakes were in the Balkans, and why we needed to rise to the role that only America could play. Here is how President Bill Clinton described Bosnia in 1995:

There are times and places where our leadership can mean

the difference between peace and war, and where we can defend

our fundamental values as a people and serve our most basic,

strategic interests. [T]here are still times when America and

America alone can and should make the difference for peace.

Nearly two decades ago, I worked with both my Democratic and Republican colleagues in Congress to support President Clinton as he led America to do the right thing in stopping mass atrocities in Bosnia. The question for another President today, and for all of my colleagues in this body, indeed for all Americans, is whether we will once again answer the desperate pleas for rescue that are made uniquely to us, as the United States of America.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, over the last few years, I have spoken on the floor about how the Department of Defense procures major weapons systems--a system that is, to a large degree, broken, unfortunately. It is now even more important. With defense funding likely to be constrained to reduced levels in the coming years, our role as legislators overseeing major defense acquisition programs to make sure they are efficient and effective is as important today as it has ever been--indeed, even more so.

A recently released Government Accountability Office--GAO--report that is highly critical of the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship Program brings me to the floor today. On that program, the Navy plans to spend over $40 billion to buy a total of 52 seaframes and 64 so-called ``plug-and-play'' mission modules. These are modules that would be moved on and off, depending on the mission in which the Littoral Combat Ship is engaged. The combined capability of those modules with the seaframes is supposed to give these ships their intended lethality.

Until recently, my main concern with this program has been the unbridled growth in the cost to build the seaframes of the lead ships: the Freedom--the steel hull version--and the Independence, which is an aluminum trimaran version. The Navy appears to have addressed that problem. While the cost to build the seaframes for the follow-ships is still about double the program's original, overly optimistic cost estimate--which is not unusual--the cost to complete the construction appears to have stabilized at about $450 million each.

Today I am concerned about another very serious problem: that the Navy will buy too many of these ships before the combination of their seaframes, with their interchangeable mission modules, has been proven capable of performing the missions these ships are supposed to perform. In other words, the Navy will not know whether this Littoral Combat Ship meets the combatant commanders' operational requirements until after it has procured more than half of the 52 planned ships. This is particularly troubling inasmuch as the Littoral Combat Ship fleet will comprise more than one-third of the Navy's surface combatant ships.

The Littoral Combat Ships' stated primary missions are antisubmarine warfare, mine countermeasures, and surface warfare against small boats, especially in the littorals. These three primary missions appear oriented toward countering, among other things, some of the littoral or coastal anti-access/area-denial capabilities that have been fielded in recent years by potential adversaries.

The Navy took delivery of the first of two ships--the Freedom and Independence--more than 3 years ago. But the ship called Freedom actually deployed, albeit with limited capability, to Singapore in March and has experienced many of the technical challenges normally associated with a prototype ship. The decision to deploy the ship Freedom prior to the completion of critical developmental and operational testing may be good salesmanship on the part of the Navy, but the current plan to buy more than half of the total Littoral Combat Ship fleet prior to the completion of operational testing plainly contradicts defense acquisition guidelines and best procurement practices--and amounts to a case of ``buy before you fly,'' to borrow a phrase from aircraft acquisitions.

It also increases the risk that the program will incur additional costs to backfit already built Littoral Combat Ships with expensive design changes identified through late testing and evaluation or, worse, operational use.

As is the case in several other major defense acquisition programs, the problem here is ``excessive concurrency''--that is, an overlap between development and production that exposes the program to a high risk of costly retrofits to earlier units in the production run. It sounds simple, but this is the problem that for years rendered the Joint Strike Fighter Program effectively unexecutable and that led to the terminations of the Army's multibillion-dollar Future Combat Systems Program and the Air Force's Expeditionary Combat Support System Program.

As to the Littoral Combat Ship, the General Accountability Office spelled out this problem in the report it released just a few days ago. According to the GAO:

There are significant unknowns related to key LCS

operations and support concepts and the relative advantages

and disadvantages of the two variants. The potential effect

of these unknowns on the program is compounded by the Navy's

aggressive acquisition strategy. By the time key tests of

integrated LCS capability are completed in several years, the

Navy will have procured or have under contract more than half

of the planned number of ships. Almost half of the planned

ships are already under contract, and the Navy plans to award

further contracts in 2016, before the Department of Defense

makes a decision about full rate production of the ships. The

Navy will not be able to demonstrate that mission packages

integrated with the seaframes can meet the minimum

performance requirements until operational testing for both

variants [the Freedom and the Independence] is completed,

currently planned for 2019.

I repeat: 2019.

I again voice my concern that the Navy plans to purchase many, if not most, of the Littoral Combat Ships in the program before knowing whether the ships will work as advertised and as needed.

The GAO report's bottom line recommendation is to limit future seaframe and mission module purchases until the LCS Program achieves key acquisition and testing milestones that would help make sure that the program delivers required combat capability. I agree completely with the GAO. GAO's concerns are shared by the Pentagon's independent chief tester and even the Navy itself, in an internal report called the ``OPNAV Report'' or ``Perez Report.'' I highly recommend that anyone who has an interest in the Littoral Combat Ship read these reports.

In terms of the costs to national security and to the taxpayer, we simply cannot afford to continue committing unlimited resources to an unproven program that may eventually account for more than one-third of the surface combatant fleet. The LCS seaframe and mission modules are at different points along the acquisition life cycle. We need to put a pause on additional ship purchases and synchronize the plans for testing the seaframes and the mission modules to make sure the Navy is executing a coherent acquisition strategy that will deliver combat capability responsive to what our operational commanders actually need.

Also, the Navy has to lay out a clear top-level plan on how these ships will be used in response to reasonably foreseeable, relevant threats around the world. In other words, it needs to decide the concept of operation--or CONOPS--that this ship class will support. According to a declassified internal Navy report released last Tuesday, ``There are two options: Building a CONOPS''--that means concept of operations--``to match LCS' current capabilities or modifying the ship to better meet the needs of the Theater Commanders.''

The report goes on to say: ``The ship's current characteristics limit operations to a greater extent than envisioned by the CONOPS. . . .'' The second option is to ``modify the ship to support the warfighting requirements. Our review identified opportunities to modify several of the ships' characteristics to more closely align with the intent of the original CONOPS.''

Right now, it seems as though whatever combat capability LCS can muster is driving its mission, not the other way around, as in most ships. In other words, the Littoral Combat Ship appears to be a ship looking for a mission. But just to perform its three currently intended primary missions, the Navy is looking at significant design changes and increasing Littoral Combat Ships' crew size, even though it has already bought about 30 percent of all of the LCS ships it intends to buy. That could increase its procurement and life cycle operation and support costs well beyond current estimates and strain its affordability. Given how many frigates, minesweepers, and patrol crafts the Navy currently plans to retire over the next 5 years in favor of Littoral Combat Ships, this is particularly troubling.

Notably, the Government Accountability Office also reports: ``Current LCS weapon systems are underperforming and offer little chance of survival in a combat scenario.''

In this regard, the Government Accountability Office appears to agree with the Pentagon's chief independent weapons tester. As this top Pentagon official has noted, before proceeding beyond early production, this program should complete initial operational testing and evaluation to determine that it is effective, suitable, and survivable. But LCS is not doing so. Why not? We need an answer to that. If, for whatever reason, the Navy believes it must deviate from that practice, what plan will it put in place to mitigate the resulting concurrency risk?

Let me be clear. To justify the purchase of the remaining 32 ships in the program, the Navy must first provide credible evidence based on rigorous, operationally relevant and realistic testing and evaluation, that this ship will in fact be able to adequately perform its primary stated missions and meet combatant commander requirements. Congress must, at a minimum, thoroughly review this program before authorizing funding in fiscal year 2015 to buy the next four LCS's and require the Secretary of the Navy to certify, on the basis of sound written justification arising from sufficient initial operational testing and evaluation, that the LCS ships will be able to adequately perform their intended missions and provide our operational commanders with the combat capability they need.

The American people are--quite rightly--tired of seeing their taxpayer dollars wasted on disastrous defense programs such as the Air Force's failed ECSS Program or the Army's Future Combat System Program or the Navy's VH-71 Presidential Helicopter Replacement Program. LCS must not be allowed to become yet another failed program in an already unacceptably long list of amorphous acronyms that--after squandering literally billions of taxpayer dollars--have long since lost meaning.

On the LCS program, the Navy must right its course--today.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I honor a man whose bravery and sacrifice for this country have had no bounds; a fellow prisoner of war who I am proud to call my friend. This great American hero is Ernest C. Brace, and he was just authorized to be awarded the Purple Heart and Prisoner of War Medal.

Mr. Brace was the longest held civilian prisoner of war in Vietnam, held captive for nearly 8 years. He was captured while serving as a civilian pilot for USAID and assisting Lao Special Forces United, who were organizing the civic action teams for hospitals and supply bases. He was captured by communist forces in Laos in 1965 and held prisoner in the jungle under some of the most horrific conditions imaginable for 3 years until he was moved to a prison camp in North Vietnam. It was there that Ernie and I shared neighboring cells for over a year. Amidst the pain and cruelty of our time together, I also vividly remember our conversations, Sunday night storytelling sessions, and how we kept each other's spirits up during those dark days when our hope never wavered.

After his release, Mr. Brace married a nurse, Nancy, that he met at Naval Medical Center in San Diego, moved to Klamath Falls, OR, and resumed his career as professional aviator. Preceding the Purple Heart and Prisoner of War Medal, Mr. Brace earned the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal, with 3 stars, Navy Unit Commendation, a Distinguished Public Service Medal, a National Defense Service Medal, a Korean Service Medal, with 2 stars, a United Nations Korea Medal, and the Korean Presidential Unit Citation.

I ask you all to join me in congratulating this incredibly brave man and American patriot, my friend Ernie Brace, on this long overdue recognition.

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

Mr. President, Sunday brought the sad news that my dear friend Col. George E. ``Bud'' Day passed away. He was 88 years old. To say he lived a full life would be quite an understatement. His was filled with so many extraordinary experiences, adventures, challenges, accomplishments, and with such love, compassion, and courage that it could have supplied enough experiences, excitement, and satisfaction for 10 lifetimes.

Bud knew defeats and triumphs on a scale few will ever know. He lived in moments filled with every conceivable emotion. He knew terror and suffering. He knew joy and deliverance. He knew solidarity, self- respect, and dignity.

Knowing him as well as I did, I am certain he faced his end satisfied that he had made the most of his time on Earth. He will have faced it with courage as he faced all adversity. He will have faced it with gratitude for the love and companionship for his beloved wife and best friend Dorie, his sons Steve and George, and his twin girls, Sandra and Sonya. He will have faced it with humility for having had the honor to serve his country with distinction in three wars: World War II, the Korean war, and the Vietnam war.

I had the honor of being Bud's friend for almost five decades of his 88 years. We met in 1967 when the Vietnamese left me to die in the prison cell Bud shared with Maj. Norris Overly. Bud and Norris wouldn't let me die. They bathed me, fed me, nursed me, encouraged me, and ordered me back to life. Norris did much of the work, but Bud did all he could considering he too had recently been near death--shot, bombed, beaten savagely by his captors, and his arm broken in three places. He was a hard man to kill, and he expected the same from his subordinates. They saved my life--a big debt to repay, obviously. But more than that, Bud showed me how to save my self-respect and my honor, and that is a debt I can never repay.

Bud was a fierce--and I mean really fierce--resister. He could not be broken in spirit no matter how broken he was in body. Those who knew Bud after the war could see how tough he was, but, my God, to have known him in prison--confronting our enemies day in and day out, never, ever yielding. He defied men who had the power of life and death over us. To witness him sing the national anthem in response to having a rifle pointed at his face--well, that was something to behold. Unforgettable. No one had more guts than Bud or greater determination to do his duty and then some, to keep faith with his country and his comrades whatever the cost. Bud was my commanding officer but more, he was my inspiration, as he was for all the men who were privileged to serve under him.

Nothing offers more compelling testimony to Bud's guts and determination and his patriotism than the account of his escape from captivity. In the entire war he was the only American who managed to escape from North Vietnam.

In 1967 then-major Bud Day commanded a squadron of F-100s that served as forward air controllers over North Vietnam and Laos. They were called the Mistys, named for Bud's favorite song. Theirs was probably the most dangerous combat duty in the Air Force, and they suffered high casualties.

On August 26 Bud Day was one of those casualties. Bud was shot down by a surface-to-air missile 20 miles inside of North Vietnam. He hit the fuselage of his F-100 when he ejected, breaking his arm, damaging his eye, and injuring his back. Bud was immediately captured by North Vietnamese militia. He was interrogated by his captors in an underground prison camp. When he refused to answer their questions, they staged a mock execution. Then they hung him by his feet for hours and beat him. Believing he was too badly injured to escape, they tied him up loosely and left him guarded by two green teenage soldiers. They misjudged him. On his fifth day of captivity he untied his ropes and escaped.

Bud stayed on the run for about 2 weeks. He wasn't certain how long he was free. He lost track of time. He made it across the DMZ and into South Vietnam. A bomb, however, had fallen near him his second night on the run, striking him with shrapnel, concussing him and rupturing his eardrums. Limping, bleeding, starving, and in great pain, Bud kept heading south across rivers, through dense jungles, over hills, crawling sometimes on his hands and knees, evading enemy patrols and surviving on berries, frogs, and rainwater.

On the last night of Bud's escape he arrived within 2 kilometers of a forward marine. Sensibly judging it more dangerous to approach the guarded base at night than to wait until morning when the marine guards could see he was an American, Bud slept one more night in the jungle.

Early the next morning he encountered a Viet Cong patrol. He was shot

trying to hobble to the base, recaptured, and returned to the camp he had escaped, where he was tortured some more.

A few days later Bud's captors took him to the prison we called the Plantation, where I would meet him 2 months later. He was one of the most grievously injured pilots to arrive in Hanoi. Norris helped nurse him back to some semblance of health, although he would never fully recover from his wounds. Then Bud helped Norris nurse me.

Whenever I felt my spirits and resistance flag, I looked to Bud for the courage to continue and for the example of how to serve my country in difficult circumstances. Bud was the bravest man I ever knew, and I have known more than a few. He was great company too and made it possible to actually have fun in prison once in a while. He received the Medal of Honor when he came home--the highest of his many decorations for valor. Despite his injuries, he managed to regain flying status and commanded a flight wing at Eglin Air Force Base.

When Bud ultimately retired from the Air Force, he practiced law. After his service in World War II but before he deployed to the Korean war, he graduated from college and law school. He devoted his practice to defending the interests of his fellow veterans.

Bud and I stayed close through all the years that have passed since our war. We talked often. We saw each other regularly. He campaigned with me in all my campaigns and advised me always. We argued sometimes, agreed more often, laughed a lot, and always enjoyed each other's company. I am going to miss him terribly.

Even though Bud had reached advanced years, for some reason I could never imagine Bud yielding to anything--even, I thought, to the laws of nature. Tough old bird that he was, I always thought he would outlive us all. But he is gone now to a heaven I expect he imagined would look like an Iowa cornfield in early winter, filled with pheasants.

I will miss Bud every day for the rest of my life, but I will see him again. I know I will. I will hunt the field with him, and I look forward to it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we are going to move forward to the Cordray nomination, which has been held up for some period of time. I would like to thank everybody on both sides of the aisle who was engaged in this debate and discussion. I would particularly like to thank all of my colleagues who engaged in a long but productive discussion last night--which is our custom--of the many issues that separate us, particularly some pending, what many of us believe to be a crisis in the history of the Senate.

I wish to thank both our leaders, Senator McConnell and Senator Reid, and so many others who have been actively engaged in conversations that have been going on. I look forward to a vote as soon as possible on Mr. Cordray.

I thank all of my colleagues for believing what I thought was very important in our relations with the Senate.

I yield the floor.

I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Warren of Massachusetts, Senator Cantwell of Washington, and Senator King of Maine, and also recognize the hard work of my friend from Ohio who has been heavily involved in this issue in the past.

This legislation is bipartisan. The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, which will restore the much needed wall between investment and commercial banking to lessen risk, restore confidence in our banking system, and better protect the American taxpayer. The original 1933 Glass-Steagall Act was put in place to respond to the financial crash of 1929.

Similar to the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act that we are introducing today, it put up a wall between commercial and investment banking with the idea of separating riskier investment banking from the core banking functions such as checking and savings accounts that Americans need in their everyday life.

Commercial banks traditionally use their customer's deposit for the purpose of Main Street loans within their communities. They did not engage in high-risk ventures. Investment banks, however, managed money for those who could afford to take bigger risks in order to get a bigger return and who bore their own losses. Unfortunately, core provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act were repealed in 1999, shattering the wall dividing commercial banks and investment banks. Since that time, we have seen a culture of greed and excessive risk-taking take root in the banking world, where common sense and caution with other people's money no longer matters.

When these two worlds collided, the investment bank culture prevailed, cutting off the credit lifeblood of Main Street firms, demanding greater returns that were achievable only through high leverage and huge risk-taking, which ultimately left the taxpayer with the fallout.

Leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, the mantra of ``bigger is better'' took over, and sadly it still remains. The path forward focused on short-term gains rather than long-term planning. Banks became overleveraged in their haste to keep in the race. The more they lent, the more they made.

Aggressive mortgages were underwritten for unqualified individuals who became homeowners saddled with loans they could not afford. Banks turned right around and bought portfolios of these shaky loans. I know the 2008 financial crisis did not happen solely because the wall of Glass-Steagall was knocked down. But I strongly believe the repeal of these core provisions played a significant role in changing the banking system in negative ways that contributed greatly to the 2008 financial crisis.

I believe this culture of risky behavior is still in play. For example, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, on which I serve as ranking member, held a hearing in March of this year to discuss the findings of the subcommittee investigation report entitled, ``JPMorgan Chase Whale Trades: A Case History of Derivatives Risks and Abuses.''

The hearing and the findings of the investigation described how traders at JPMorgan Chase made risky bets using excess deposits that were partially insured by the Federal Government. If they wanted to make these bets on deposits and money that was not insured by the Federal Government, the Senator from Massachusetts and I would not be here today.

They used federally insured deposits, putting the taxpayers on the hook for their risky and ultimately failed investments. I say again, the Dodd-Frank bill, the whole purpose of it, as sold to this Congress and to the American people, was to ensure that no investment company or investment financial enterprise would ever be too big to fail again.

Is there anybody who believes these institutions such as I just talked about, JPMorgan Chase and others, are not too big to fail? Of course they are still too big to fail. The investigation revealed startling failures and shed light on a complex and volatile world of synthetic credit derivatives.

In a matter of months, JPMorgan Chase was able to vastly increase its exposure to risk while dodging oversight by Federal regulators. The trades ultimately cost the bank a staggering $6.2 billion in loss. This case represents another shameful demonstration of a bank engaged in wildly risky behavior. The London Whale incident matters to the Federal Government and the American taxpayer because the traders at JPMorgan Chase were making risky bets using excess deposits, a portion of which were federally insured.

These excess deposits should have been used to provide loans for Main Street businesses. Instead, JPMorgan Chase used the money to bet on catastrophic risk. The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act will return banking back to the basics by separating traditional banks that offer savings and checking accounts and are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from riskier financial institutions that offer other services such as investment banking, insurance, swaps dealing and hedge fund and private equity activities.

I believe big Wall Street institutions should be free to engage in transactions with significant risk but not with federally insured deposits. The bill also addresses depository institutions' use of products that did not exist when Glass-Steagall was originally passed, such as structured and synthetic financial products, including complex derivatives and swaps.

Finally, the bill provides financial institutions with a 5-year transition period to separate their activities. Many prominent individuals in the banking world support returning to a modern day Glass-Steagall banking system, including FDIC Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig. Last year in his opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled ``No More Welfare For Banks. The FDIC and the taxpayer are the underwriters of too much private risk taking,'' he lays out his plan to strengthen the U.S. financial system by simplifying its structure and making its institutions more accountable for their mistakes, which he calls Glass-Steagall for today. He ends his piece by stating:

Capitalism will always have crises and the recent crisis

had many contributing factors. However, the direct and

indirect expansion of the safety net to cover an ever-

increasing number of complex and risky activities made this

crisis significantly worse. We have yet to correct the error.

It is time we did.

I could not agree more. Almost 3 years ago, Congress passed Dodd- Frank with the intent to overhaul our Nation's financial system. I did not vote for Dodd-Frank because it did little if anything to tackle the tough problems facing our financial sector.

What Dodd-Frank did, though, was create thousands of pages of new and complicated rules. Is there any Member of this body who believes that Dodd-Frank has resulted in the end of too big to fail? The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act may not end too big to fail on its own, but it moves the large financial institutions in the right direction, making them smaller and safer.

This bill would rebuild the wall between commercial and investment banking that was successful for over 60 years and reduced risk for the American taxpayer.

I ask unanimous consent that the Thomas Hoenig article be printed in the Record.

I would like to thank the Senator from Massachusetts, whom I will freely admit has a great deal more knowledge, background, and expertise on this issue than I do. I appreciate her leadership. When the Senator sought to join us in the Senate, she committed to the people of Massachusetts and this country that she would be committed to certain significant reforms to ensure that we never again have the kind of crisis that devastated my State.

Still today, nearly half the homes in my State are underwater, which means they are worth less than their mortgage payments, while Wall Street has been doing well for years. That bailout is one of the more unfair aspects that I have seen in American history. We cannot revisit or fix history, but we sure can make sure we have made every effort to make sure these large financial institutions do not gamble with taxpayers' money.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. It is a pleasure to join her in this effort as her junior partner.

I yield the floor.

I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Warren of Massachusetts, Senator Cantwell of Washington, and Senator King of Maine, and also recognize the hard work of my friend from Ohio who has been heavily involved in this issue in the past.

This legislation is bipartisan. The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, which will restore the much needed wall between investment and commercial banking to lessen risk, restore confidence in our banking system, and better protect the American taxpayer. The original 1933 Glass-Steagall Act was put in place to respond to the financial crash of 1929.

Similar to the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act that we are introducing today, it put up a wall between commercial and investment banking with the idea of separating riskier investment banking from the core banking functions such as checking and savings accounts that Americans need in their everyday life.

Commercial banks traditionally use their customer's deposit for the purpose of Main Street loans within their communities. They did not engage in high-risk ventures. Investment banks, however, managed money for those who could afford to take bigger risks in order to get a bigger return and who bore their own losses. Unfortunately, core provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act were repealed in 1999, shattering the wall dividing commercial banks and investment banks. Since that time, we have seen a culture of greed and excessive risk-taking take root in the banking world, where common sense and caution with other people's money no longer matters.

When these two worlds collided, the investment bank culture prevailed, cutting off the credit lifeblood of Main Street firms, demanding greater returns that were achievable only through high leverage and huge risk-taking, which ultimately left the taxpayer with the fallout.

Leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, the mantra of ``bigger is better'' took over, and sadly it still remains. The path forward focused on short-term gains rather than long-term planning. Banks became overleveraged in their haste to keep in the race. The more they lent, the more they made.

Aggressive mortgages were underwritten for unqualified individuals who became homeowners saddled with loans they could not afford. Banks turned right around and bought portfolios of these shaky loans. I know the 2008 financial crisis did not happen solely because the wall of Glass-Steagall was knocked down. But I strongly believe the repeal of these core provisions played a significant role in changing the banking system in negative ways that contributed greatly to the 2008 financial crisis.

I believe this culture of risky behavior is still in play. For example, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, on which I serve as ranking member, held a hearing in March of this year to discuss the findings of the subcommittee investigation report entitled, ``JPMorgan Chase Whale Trades: A Case History of Derivatives Risks and Abuses.''

The hearing and the findings of the investigation described how traders at JPMorgan Chase made risky bets using excess deposits that were partially insured by the Federal Government. If they wanted to make these bets on deposits and money that was not insured by the Federal Government, the Senator from Massachusetts and I would not be here today.

They used federally insured deposits, putting the taxpayers on the hook for their risky and ultimately failed investments. I say again, the Dodd-Frank bill, the whole purpose of it, as sold to this Congress and to the American people, was to ensure that no investment company or investment financial enterprise would ever be too big to fail again.

Is there anybody who believes these institutions such as I just talked about, JPMorgan Chase and others, are not too big to fail? Of course they are still too big to fail. The investigation revealed startling failures and shed light on a complex and volatile world of synthetic credit derivatives.

In a matter of months, JPMorgan Chase was able to vastly increase its exposure to risk while dodging oversight by Federal regulators. The trades ultimately cost the bank a staggering $6.2 billion in loss. This case represents another shameful demonstration of a bank engaged in wildly risky behavior. The London Whale incident matters to the Federal Government and the American taxpayer because the traders at JPMorgan Chase were making risky bets using excess deposits, a portion of which were federally insured.

These excess deposits should have been used to provide loans for Main Street businesses. Instead, JPMorgan Chase used the money to bet on catastrophic risk. The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act will return banking back to the basics by separating traditional banks that offer savings and checking accounts and are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from riskier financial institutions that offer other services such as investment banking, insurance, swaps dealing and hedge fund and private equity activities.

I believe big Wall Street institutions should be free to engage in transactions with significant risk but not with federally insured deposits. The bill also addresses depository institutions' use of products that did not exist when Glass-Steagall was originally passed, such as structured and synthetic financial products, including complex derivatives and swaps.

Finally, the bill provides financial institutions with a 5-year transition period to separate their activities. Many prominent individuals in the banking world support returning to a modern day Glass-Steagall banking system, including FDIC Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig. Last year in his opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled ``No More Welfare For Banks. The FDIC and the taxpayer are the underwriters of too much private risk taking,'' he lays out his plan to strengthen the U.S. financial system by simplifying its structure and making its institutions more accountable for their mistakes, which he calls Glass-Steagall for today. He ends his piece by stating:

Capitalism will always have crises and the recent crisis

had many contributing factors. However, the direct and

indirect expansion of the safety net to cover an ever-

increasing number of complex and risky activities made this

crisis significantly worse. We have yet to correct the error.

It is time we did.

I could not agree more. Almost 3 years ago, Congress passed Dodd- Frank with the intent to overhaul our Nation's financial system. I did not vote for Dodd-Frank because it did little if anything to tackle the tough problems facing our financial sector.

What Dodd-Frank did, though, was create thousands of pages of new and complicated rules. Is there any Member of this body who believes that Dodd-Frank has resulted in the end of too big to fail? The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act may not end too big to fail on its own, but it moves the large financial institutions in the right direction, making them smaller and safer.

This bill would rebuild the wall between commercial and investment banking that was successful for over 60 years and reduced risk for the American taxpayer.

I ask unanimous consent that the Thomas Hoenig article be printed in the Record.

I would like to thank the Senator from Massachusetts, whom I will freely admit has a great deal more knowledge, background, and expertise on this issue than I do. I appreciate her leadership. When the Senator sought to join us in the Senate, she committed to the people of Massachusetts and this country that she would be committed to certain significant reforms to ensure that we never again have the kind of crisis that devastated my State.

Still today, nearly half the homes in my State are underwater, which means they are worth less than their mortgage payments, while Wall Street has been doing well for years. That bailout is one of the more unfair aspects that I have seen in American history. We cannot revisit or fix history, but we sure can make sure we have made every effort to make sure these large financial institutions do not gamble with taxpayers' money.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. It is a pleasure to join her in this effort as her junior partner.

I yield the floor.