Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise again in regret. The normal regular order of this body after both sides of the Capitol have agreed on a budget is to meet and that we have a proper process to instruct conferees to have a budget. A motion to appoint conferees to be bound by a requirement, no matter how worthy it is, is not the way the regular order functions in this body, and that is a fact.

For 4 years I sat here and beat up on the majority leader for his failure to bring a budget to the floor of this Senate. We brought a budget to the floor. We spent many hours on all kinds of amendments, and now we can't go to conference unless we agree not to raise the debt limit.

Does my colleague from Florida believe the House of Representatives, dominated by Republicans, is going to raise the debt limit? Does my colleague from Florida believe any conferees who are appointed, where we have to place certain restrictions on those conferees, that would apply to the other body as well? I don't think so.

I don't think that is the way this body is supposed to function. We are in a gridlock. Here we are, 4 years without a budget. We finally get a budget, we stay up all night, and because somebody doesn't want to raise the debt limit we are not going to go to conference. That is not how this body should function.

The American people deserve better. They deserve a budget. Every family in America has to live on a budget. Here we are objecting because there is a concern about raising the debt limit.

All I can say to my friend from Florida is that the American people don't like it, and I don't like it. Most of his colleagues and the Republicans in this Senate don't like it that we are blocking budget conferees from going forward and doing what conferees are supposed to do. I would imagine the majority leader will continue to raise this motion to move forward.

By the way, it is the regular order to have motions to instruct the conferees. A motion to instruct the conferees on the debt limit should be in order. A motion to instruct relative to taxes and revenue should be in order. That is

the regular order to do it. It is not the regular order to demand certain conditions on the conferees. We instruct the conferees.

The conferees are appointed by both the majority and Republican leader, and we place our confidence in those conferees to reflect the will of the majority.

I have to say I am disappointed in the Senator from Florida, in his objection and his demand that we do something that is not in the regular order.

I yield the floor.

I will yield to the Senator from Tennessee in just 1 second.

The Senator from Florida is saying, if he has an issue he feels strongly about, then that has to be included in any conference that is convened over any bill that is passed by the Senate, the House, and goes to conference. That is not a precedent I believe should be established in the Senate.

I think I share the concern of the Senator from Florida about the debt and the deficit. I will match my record against anybody's as far as trying to eliminate the debt and the deficit, including that of the Senator from Florida.

We are about to establish a precedent that if any conferees are appointed on bills that are passed by the House and the Senate, that we are free then to put certain restrictions on those conferees. If the Senator from Florida believes that is the right way this body should function, then I would suggest to him that most people would disagree with this kind of violation of the regular order.

And deservedly so.

May I ask my friend from Illinois, isn't that what the regular order is, that makes it perfectly applicable, if we instruct the conferees, which is what we are asking for in this unanimous consent agreement?

Will the Senator yield for a further question?

Isn't it a little bizarre, this whole exercise we are going through, when some of us are asking to go to conference with a body that is dominated by the Members of our own party? We don't have, apparently, enough confidence the majority of the conference appointed by the other side of the Capitol will be a majority of Republicans and not Democrats? Isn't that a little bizarre?

And really, what we are talking about here, I will be very honest with my colleague from Illinois, is a minority within a minority. Because the majority of my colleagues in the Senate on this side of the aisle, with motions to instruct the conferees, want to move forward and appoint these conferees and do what every American family has to do in America and that is to have a budget.

I would ask my friend again, basically what we are saying here on this side of the aisle is that we don't trust our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol who are, in the majority, Republicans. I guess that is the lesson that can be learned here.

But far more importantly than that--far more importantly than that-- in a recent poll I saw, 16 percent of the American people approve of Congress. When I go home and have townhall meetings and I say: You know what, my friends, we don't even have a budget. We can't even agree, Republicans and Democrats--Republicans and Republicans in this case--to have a budget, the same as every American family does. Does that contribute to the approval and the respect the people of this country have for us? The answer is obviously no.

So I urge my colleagues again, let's put some confidence in, if not the conferees appointed here, the conferees who will be appointed on the other side of the Capitol who are from our party, who are fiscal conservatives just as we are, instead of this blocking by what I assure my colleagues--all three of them here--is a minority of the minority of Republicans in the Senate who do not want to move forward with a budget that we spent so many hours and so much effort in achieving. Do not block it from going forward.

I thank the Chair, and I hope the Chair will discipline this disrespect that is being displayed because of my advanced age. This would never have happened in the Coolidge administration, in which I first served.

I thank the Senator. I also thank my dear friend Lindsey Graham for bringing this important resolution to the Senate.

Resolutions happen all the time. This is a very important one. It wouldn't have happened without the leadership and support of the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I would like to thank him for his continued leadership, including the passage of the resolution that was passed through the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday concerning the situation in Syria.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record three articles that are of importance for our colleagues.

One is from the Washington Post: ``Iran paves over suspected nuclear testing site despite U.N. protests.''

The second is another Washington Post article, by the Associated Press: ``Iran expands nuke technology for program that could be used to make weapons.''

Of interest is another one, also from the Washington Post: ``Iranian soldiers fighting for Assad in Syria, says State Department official.''

I join with 90 Members of the Senate to support this resolution. This resolution has extraordinary bipartisan support. The Senate will send a clear and unequivocal message to the regime in Tehran, and that is this: The United States will not allow you to get a nuclear weapons capability.

The dangers of a nuclear Iran cannot be denied, diminished, or dismissed. We must continue to ratchet up the pressure through sanctions, as this resolution suggests. At the end of the day, sanctions are a means to an end, not an end unto themselves. Unfortunately, despite the unprecedented international sanctions that have been put in place, Iran is today closer to a nuclear weapons capacity than ever before, and the facts speak for themselves.

In January 2009, according to the IAEA, the Iranians had approximately 1,000 kilograms of uranium enriched to 3.5 percent. Today they have more than 8,000 kilograms. In January 2009 Iran had not enriched to 20 percent. Today the IAEA reported that Iran has produced 324 kilograms of 20 percent-enriched uranium. That is 44 kilograms more than 3 months ago. It means they are moving unabated and unhindered toward the development of a nuclear weapon, and they continue to deny IAEA inspectors entry into nuclear facilities while the centrifuges continue to increase dramatically. Just a few hours ago, the IAEA issued a report that says Iran has installed close to 700 high-tech centrifuges, which will exponentially increase the speed with which Iran will be able to enrich uranium.

Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability cannot be divorced from its other destabilizing actions. The threat from Iran is comprehensive. It includes ongoing threats against Israel and other allied Arab governments across the region, it includes a decades-long campaign of unconventional warfare, and it includes Iran's ongoing role as the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

Let's not forget that Iran has bolstered violent extremist groups such as Hezbollah and Shiite militias in Iraq who are responsible for the murders of hundreds of young American forces and innocent civilians or that senior leaders of the Quds Force were implicated in a terrorist plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the United States on U.S. soil.

The Iranian regime continues to undertake its full-fledged campaign of brutality to keep Bashar al-Asad in power in Syria. Senior Iranian officials are advising and assisting the Syrian military with intelligence support and weapons. They have undertaken, together with Hezbollah, a large-scale training effort of as many as 50,000 militiamen. As today's Washington Post makes clear, Iranian soldiers are fighting on the ground in Syria, supporting the regime as it massacres its civilians.

I ask whether this is in America's national security interest.

The threat in Iran is more deadly and more serious than any I have seen in my lifetime. I don't think this threat will be fully resolved until a very different set of leaders is in power in Tehran and until we see an Iranian Government that reflects the will of the Iranian people. I am confident that the current regime that rules Iran will not last forever for the simple reason that the Iranian people want the same freedoms and rights as people elsewhere.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Again, I thank the Senator from South Carolina Mr. Graham for his hard work on this resolution for a change.

I will reserve the right to object to the modification, and I will object in just a moment.

I would like to point out to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that for 4 years--for 4 years--we complained about the fact that the majority leader, whom I see on the floor, refused to bring a budget to the floor of the Senate. Then, in what most of us believe was a proud moment--I thought it was a pretty tiring experience at my age, voting all night--we approved or disapproved of 70 meaningless amendments.

The fact is, we did a budget. All of us patted ourselves on the back, and we were so proud that we did the budget. By golly, now we will move with the House of Representatives and we will have a budget and, hopefully, at least begin negotiations with the House of Representatives, in which the majority is Republicans--not Democrats, Republicans. We would decide we were going to do that. Now we are going to, according to the objection and the unanimous consent that was just asked for, in an unprecedented way, put restrictions on the conferees.

The way we usually do it is what I am about to do; that is, we instruct the conferees. We don't require the conferees because that is why we appoint conferees, and that is why we approve or disapprove of the result of that conference. That is how our laws are made, and that is how our budgets are made.

What do we keep doing? What do we on my side of the aisle keep doing? We don't want a budget unless we put requirements on the conferees that are absolutely out of line and unprecedented.

All I say to my colleagues is, can't we, after all those hours--I forget what hour in the morning it was--after all those votes, after all that debate and all that discussion, we came up with a budget and now we will not go to conference, why is that?

I will object to the modification the Senator from Kentucky just asked for in a moment, but I would first ask consent that the original request by the Senator from Washington include two motions: to instruct the conferees, one related to the debt limit, and one related to taxes. That is the way we should do business in the Senate. It is instructions to the conferees.

The Senator from Washington may not like those instructions, but the fact is that is the way we do business, not require the conferees to take certain measures. If my colleagues on this side of the aisle think we are helping our cause as fiscal conservatives by blocking going to a conference on the budget--which every family in America has to be on because of certain requirements they demand--then we are not helping ourselves with the American people at all.

I will object to the modification proposed by the Senator from Kentucky.

I would first ask consent that the original request by the Senator from Washington include two motions to instruct the conferees: one related to the debt limit and one related to taxes.

Will the Senator yield for a question, just one question?

Isn't it true that the people with whom the conference would be held on the other side of the Capitol happen to be a majority of our party? So we don't trust the majority party on the other side of the aisle to come to conference and not hold to the fiscal discipline we want to see happen; isn't that a little bit bizarre?

Madam President, today I honor a superb leader, scholar, and warrior. After a lifetime of service to our Nation, ADM James G. Stavridis is retiring from the U.S. Navy and his position as Commander of the United States European Command. On this occasion, I believe it is fitting to recognize Admiral Stavridis' years of distinguished uniformed service to our Nation.

The admiral is a 1976 distinguished graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. He has led at every level from command-at-sea to theater command. Admiral Stavridis has also served as a strategic planner for the Chief of Naval Operations and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and as the senior military assistant to the Secretary of Defense. Prior to assuming command of the United States European Command, he commanded the U.S. Southern Command, focused on Latin America and the Caribbean. Admiral Stavridis assumed command of European Command on June 30, 2009, the first naval officer to hold this command.

Admiral Stavridis' contributions to scholarship are also notable. He has graduated with distinction from the Naval Academy, the Naval War College, the National War College, and the

Fletcher School at Tufts University, where he earned a doctorate of philosophy in international relations. He has been frequently published by many publications, including Foreign Affairs, and the United States Naval Institute's Proceedings. Admiral Stavridis was even featured in a 2012 TED Global where he spoke about the future of global security.

His leadership has been consistently recognized formally and informally, to include the Battenberg Cup for the top ship in the Atlantic Fleet, and the John Paul Jones Award for inspirational leadership. Admiral Stavridis' impact on the sailors and the fleet has been indelible. He is the author or coauthor of seminal works on naval leadership, including ``Command At Sea.'' His impact on soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines will continue well into the future.

Our Navy and our Nation will feel his absence. I join many past and present members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in my gratitude to ADM James Stavridis for his outstanding leadership and his unwavering support of servicemembers. I wish him and his wife Laura ``fair winds and following seas.''

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the Feinstein-McCain amendment No. 923 and make it pending.

Mr. President, if I heard the Senator correctly, she committed to a vote on this amendment, correct?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy.

Does that mean we would vote on this early on?

I thank the distinguished manager.

Since I have the floor, I would like to make a brief statement about the amendment. I understand the objection, and I would rely on the good offices of the manager of the bill, as well as the ranking member, that we would have a vote early on in regard to this amendment and not at the last minute when we are trying to complete the votes on the amendments to the bill.

The amendment by Senator Feinstein and me would eliminate taxpayer- subsidized crop insurance for tobacco. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this amendment would save taxpayers $333 million. Again, that is the estimate of the Congressional Budget Office.

It might surprise Americans to know that despite efforts to end traditional farm subsidies for tobacco producers, government handouts for tobacco lives on in the form of highly subsidized crop insurance. Since 2004 we have spent more than $276 million on insurance subsidies for tobacco. This is in addition to the $10 billion financed under the tobacco buyout law the Congress passed a decade ago. That law was paid for by assessments on cigarette manufacturers, and it was meant to wean tobacco growers from farm subsidies by buying out their growing quotas. Well, it turns out that Joe Camel's nose has been under the tent all this time in the form of these hidden crop insurance subsidies.

As my colleagues know, crop insurance in general has a dubious reputation as a ``safety net'' for farmers because it largely insures against revenue loss instead of crop loss due to weather or pests. According to the Congressional Research Service, taxpayers spend about $14 billion a year to subsidize about 60 percent of the cost of crop insurance premiums. The Federal Government also reimburses private crop insurance companies for about 25 percent of their ``administrative and operating'' costs.

We have identified eight types of tobacco that are eligible for crop insurance: tobacco Maryland, tobacco flue cured, tobacco fire cured, tobacco dark air, tobacco cigar wrapper, tobacco cigar filler, tobacco cigar binder, and

tobacco burley. All of these crops remain extremely profitable even without their old farm subsidies.

According to reports by the Wall Street Journal and CNBC, tobacco is 10 times more profitable than corn and most American tobacco is exported. In fact, the value of American tobacco is at a 10-year high since Congress ended traditional tobacco subsidies. It makes no sense to subsidize tobacco insurance considering how well the free market system is working for tobacco producers.

I will have a longer statement on this, Mr. President.

Last year the eight separate tobacco insurance products cost $34.7 million in taxpayer subsidies. The USDA--Department of Agriculture-- data shows that more than $276 million in taxpayer subsidies has been spent on this tobacco subsidy program since 2004.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cigarette smoking adds $96 billion to domestic health care expenses and costs the American economy $97 billion in loss productivity annually. Secondhand smoke adds another $10 billion in health care costs and lost productivity.

Clearly, we should be doing nothing to subsidize production of tobacco. I am not saying we should ban the growth of tobacco in America; that is a decision farmers and the market make. But for us to continue to subsidize when these enormous costs are borne by the American people in terms of our health and our economy--it is time we ended it.

I thank the distinguished manager and ranking member for their commitment to having an up-or-down vote on this amendment.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I honor an outstanding leader and public servant. After over 30 years of service to our Nation both in and out of uniform, Secretary Michael Donley is retiring from his current position as Secretary of the U.S. Air Force. On this occasion, I believe it is fitting to recognize Secretary Donley's years of service to our great Nation.

Mr. Donley has over 30 years of experience in the national security community, including service in the Senate, White House, and the Pentagon, as well as in the private sector. Mr. Donley served in the U.S. Army from 1972 to 1975 with the XVIIIth Airborne Corps and 5th Special Forces Group, Airborne. He was also a professional staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Donley supported two Presidents and five National Security Advisers during his service at the National Security Council from 1984 to 1989. He conceived and organized the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, coordinated White House policy on the Goldwater-Nichols DOD Reorganization Act of 1986, and wrote the national security strategy for President Reagan's second term. Prior to assuming his current position, Mr. Donley served as the Director of Administration and Management in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley will retire from public service June 21, after nearly 5 years in the position. Prior to his confirmation as the Secretary of the Air Force, he served as Acting Secretary--making him the longest serving Secretary of the Air Force in the service's history.

Secretary Michael Donley's leadership will be missed throughout the government. I join many past and present members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in my gratitude to Secretary Donley for his outstanding leadership and his unwavering support of servicemembers. Secretary Donley's

service has enabled the Air Force to continue to fly, fight, and win in air, space, and cyberspace. I wish him fair winds and following seas.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that myself, Senator Levin, Senator Menendez, and Senator Graham be permitted to participate in a colloquy for up to 40 minutes.

If it is agreeable to Senator Levin, I say to my friend from South Carolina, we could each make a brief opening statement, maybe a 6-, 7-minute opening statement, and then maybe have a colloquy amongst us. Is that agreeable to the Senator from Michigan?

I thank my colleagues. I wish to thank my dear friend from South Carolina whose efforts on another issue in Benghazi have brought the attention of the American people to a tragic situation that happened there. We need to place responsibility for it, and if it had not been for his tenacity and effort on this issue, I do not believe it would have been brought to the attention of the American people yesterday. So I wish to thank him for his usual and unusual continuation of efforts on behalf of the families who were killed.

Mr. President, today I and my colleagues are here to speak about Syria. The strategic and humanitarian costs of this conflict continue to be devastating, not just for the people of Syria but for vital American interests. As today's Washington Post editorial makes clear, nearly all of the terrible consequences that those opposed to intervention predicted would happen if we intervened in Syria have happened because we have not.

There is mounting evidence that chemical weapons have been used by the Asad regime. As many of our colleagues have noted--including Senator Feinstein, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee-- President Obama's redline on Syria has been crossed. But instead of acting, the Obama administration has called for additional evidence to be collected by U.N. investigators who have not yet set foot in Syria and probably never will. In the absence of more robust action, I fear it will not be long before Asad takes this delay as an invitation to use chemical weapons again on an even larger scale.

Moreover, as I have said before, by drawing a redline on chemical weapons, the President actually gave the Asad regime a green light to use every other weapon in his arsenal with impunity. More than 70,000 Syrians have been killed indiscriminately with snipers, artillery, helicopter gunships, fighter jets, and even ballistic missiles. Indeed, according to a recent Human Rights Watch report, more than 4,300 civilians have been killed by Syria's airstrikes alone since July 2012.

At the same time, Iran and its proxy Hezbollah are building a network of militias inside Syria and the al-Qaida-aligned al-Nusra Front has gained unprecedented strength on the ground. According to estimates published in the media, some believe there were no more than a few hundred al-Nusra fighters in Syria last year, but today it is widely believed there could be thousands of extremist fighters inside Syria. They are gaining strength by the day because they are the best, most experienced fighters. They are well-funded and are providing humanitarian assistance in the parts of Syria where people need it most.

At the same time, this conflict is having increasingly devastating consequences to the security and stability of our allies and partners in Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, and Lebanon. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has characterized the situation in Syria as an ``existential threat'' for Lebanon, where the government estimates that 1 million Syrians have entered the country--1 million Syrians have entered the country of Lebanon--which has a population of just over 4 million. Similarly, over the past 2 years, more than 500,000 Syrians have flooded into Jordan, a country of only 6 million people. Consider for a moment that in proportional terms this would be equivalent to 26 million refugees, or the entire population of Texas, suddenly crossing our own borders.

In short, Syria is becoming a failed state in the heart of the Middle East overrun by thousands of al-Qaida-affiliated fighters, with possibly tons of chemical weapons, and poised to ignite a wider sectarian conflict that could profoundly destabilize the region.

Yesterday brought news that the administration plans to organize, together with Russia, an international peace conference later this month to seek a negotiated settlement to the war in Syria. All of us-- all of us--are in favor of such a political resolution to this conflict. No one wants to see this conflict turn into a fight to the death and total victory for one side or the other. We all want to work toward a political settlement that forms a new governing structure in Syria reflective of the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people.

But let's be realistic. One of the lessons of the past 2 years is that such a negotiated settlement will not be possible in Syria until the balance of power shifts more decisively against Asad and those around him. Until Asad, as well as his Iranian, Hezbollah, and Russian backers no longer believe they are winning, what incentive do they have to come to the table and make a deal? This is what two well-meaning United Nations senior envoys have already learned.

Yes, Syrian opposition forces are gaining strength and territory on the ground. But Asad still has air power--a decisive factor in that climate, in that terrain--ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, and a host of other advanced weaponry, and he is using all of

it. Furthermore, today's news reports that Russia has agreed to sell an advanced air defense system to the Asad regime should lead us once again to ask ourselves whether the path to peace in Syria runs through Moscow.

I know Americans are war-weary and eager to focus on our domestic and economic problems and not foreign affairs. I also know the situation in Syria is complex and there are no ideal options. But the basic choice we face is not complicated: Do the costs of inaction outweigh the costs of action? I believe they do.

No one should think the United States has to act alone, put boots on the ground, or destroy every Syrian air defense system to make a difference for the better in Syria. We have more limited options at our disposal, including limited military options, that can make a positive impact on this crisis.

We could, for example, organize an overt and large-scale operation to train and arm well-vetted Syrian opposition forces--a course of action that was recommended last year by President Obama's entire national security team. I am encouraged that Senator Menendez, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has introduced legislation this week on this very issue and that he is speaking out about the need for more robust action in Syria, including addressing Asad's air power.

As several key leaders in our own military have pointed out in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee over the past several months--from Gen. James Mattis to ADM James Stavridis--we have the capacity--we have the capacity--to significantly weaken both the Asad regime's air power and its increasing use of ballistic missiles, which pose significant risks as delivery vehicles for chemical weapons.

To address this threat, we could use our precision strike capabilities to target Asad's aircraft and Scud missile launchers on the ground without our pilots having to fly into the teeth of Syria's air defenses. Similar weapons could be used to selectively destroy artillery pieces and make Asad's forces think twice about remaining at their posts. We could use the Patriot missile batteries outside of Syria to help protect safe zones inside Syria from Asad's aerial bombing and missile attacks.

Would any of these options immediately end the conflict? Probably not. But they could save innocent lives in Syria. They could give the moderate opposition a better chance to succeed in marginalizing radical actors and eventually provide security and responsible governance in Syria after Asad falls. However, the longer we wait, the worse the situation gets and the tougher it will be to confront, as we will inevitably be forced to do sooner or later.

I am encouraged that a consensus is emerging and many of our colleagues--Democrats and Republicans alike--share this view. I note the leadership of Senator Levin, the chairman of our Armed Services Committee, whom I joined in writing a letter to President Obama urging him to take more active steps in Syria. I also note the important voice Senator Bob Casey has lent to this debate and ask unanimous consent that his op-ed printed last week in the Huffington Post, ``Time to Act in Syria''--which calls for consideration of more options, including cruise missile strikes to neutralize the Syrian Air Force--be printed in the Record.

Let me conclude with one final thought. For America, our interests are our values and our values are our interests. The moral dimension cannot be lost 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 this week:

Seventy thousand people have died in the Syrian war, most

of them at the hands of their ruler. Since this number has

appeared in the papers for many months, the actual number

must be much higher. 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. They 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.

Nearly two decades ago, I worked with 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 Americans, is whether we will again answer the desperate pleas for rescue that are made uniquely to us, as the United States of America.

I, first, would ask both of my colleagues one question, if it would be all right. There is news today that the Secretary of State wants to convene a conference, including the Russians, in order to try to bring about a resolution at the same time we read reports that the Russians are selling Syria the most advanced weapons. I guess I would ask my colleague from South Carolina and then Senator Levin because I know he has a statement.

I thank the distinguished chairman. May I say, it has been a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to serve on the Foreign Relations Committee, of which Senator Menendez is the chairman. I think his stewardship of that committee has been outstanding. I appreciate the very articulate argument the chairman just presented, including the strategic dimension of this whole issue which sometimes in our--particularly, when you focus so much on the humanitarian side, the strategic interest of the fall of Bashar Al-Asad is something which I think adds another dimension. I thank the Senator and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Can I just ask one question of my colleague? I understand recently he made a trip to the Middle East. There is nothing like seeing the terrible consequences of war. I understand the Senator visited a refugee camp.

Maybe for the benefit of our colleagues the Senator could take a minute to describe the horrible conditions people who have now been made refugees have been subjected to and their failure to understand why we won't be able to be of more assistance to them.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Washington Post editorial entitled ``Repercussions Of Inaction,'' a Wall Street Journal article, ``U.S. Is Warned Russia Plans Syria Arms Sale,'' and, finally, a piece by Leon Wieseltier that is in the Washington Diarist.

I thank my colleagues. I yield.

Madam President, before the Senator from Pennsylvania leaves the floor, I would like to thank him for his forthright and courageous statement on the situation in Syria. I thank him for his involvement and his commitment to the freedom of the people of Syria.

(The remarks of Mr. McCain pertaining to the introduction of S. 912 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Today I am introducing the Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013. The legislation has three principal objectives:

One, encourage the wholesale and retail unbundling of programming by distributors and programmers. Allow the consumer, the television viewer who subscribes to cable, to have a la carte capability--in other words, not be required to buy a whole bunch of channels that consumer may not wish to subscribe to--in order words, a la carte. If you want to watch one television program, you can watch it. If you do not, you do not have to. The situation today obviously is far different from that.

It would also establish consequences if broadcasters choose to downgrade their over-the-air service.

Three, it eliminates the sports blackout rule for events that are held in publicly financed stadiums.

For over 15 years, I have supported giving consumers the ability to buy cable channels individually, which is known as a la carte, to provide consumers more control over viewing options in their homes and, as a result, their monthly cable bills. The video industry--principally cable companies and satellite companies and the programmers that sell channels, such as NBC and Disney-ABC--continues to give consumers two options when buying TV programming: first, to purchase a package of channels whether they watch them all or not or, second, not purchase any cable programming at all.

There are two choices: You can either buy one of their packages or not watch it at all. That is unfair and wrong, especially when you consider how the regulatory deck is stacked in favor of industry against the American consumer. It is clear when one looks at how cable prices have gone up over the last 15 years, which was brought to the light by the most recent Federal Communications Commission pricing survey. In the FCC survey, the average monthly price of expanded basic service--basic service--for all communities surveyed increased 5.4 percent over the 12 months ending January 1, 2011, or to $54.46, compared to an increase of 1.6 percent in the Consumer Price Index. In other words, the cost of cable went up nearly four times the consumer prices people pay for everything else. You can only do that when you have a monopoly.

Over the last 15 years, this rise in cost has become even more evident. According to the FCC, the price of expanded basic cable has gone up at a compound average annual growth rate of 6.1 percent during the period from 1995 to 2011. This means that the average annual cable price has gone up about $25 a month from 1995, to over $54 today. That is a 100-percent price increase. People are on fixed incomes. People are hurting. Why in the world should they have a 100-percent cost increase? The only way it can be done is through monopolies.

Those that provide video directly to consumers, such as cable and satellite companies, are not solely to blame for the high prices consumers face today. Many articles have been written about the packages of channels--commonly called bundles--that are sold to cable and satellite companies by video programmers such as Comcast, NBC, Time Warner, Viacom, and the Walt Disney Company, which owns 80 percent of

Today I am introducing the Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013. The legislation has three principal objectives:

One, encourage the wholesale and retail unbundling of programming by distributors and programmers. Allow the consumer, the television viewer who subscribes to cable, to have a la carte capability--in other words, not be required to buy a whole bunch of channels that consumer may not wish to subscribe to--in order words, a la carte. If you want to watch one television program, you can watch it. If you do not, you do not have to. The situation today obviously is far different from that.

It would also establish consequences if broadcasters choose to downgrade their over-the-air service.

Three, it eliminates the sports blackout rule for events that are held in publicly financed stadiums.

For over 15 years, I have supported giving consumers the ability to buy cable channels individually, which is known as a la carte, to provide consumers more control over viewing options in their homes and, as a result, their monthly cable bills. The video industry--principally cable companies and satellite companies and the programmers that sell channels, such as NBC and Disney-ABC--continues to give consumers two options when buying TV programming: first, to purchase a package of channels whether they watch them all or not or, second, not purchase any cable programming at all.

There are two choices: You can either buy one of their packages or not watch it at all. That is unfair and wrong, especially when you consider how the regulatory deck is stacked in favor of industry against the American consumer. It is clear when one looks at how cable prices have gone up over the last 15 years, which was brought to the light by the most recent Federal Communications Commission pricing survey. In the FCC survey, the average monthly price of expanded basic service--basic service--for all communities surveyed increased 5.4 percent over the 12 months ending January 1, 2011, or to $54.46, compared to an increase of 1.6 percent in the Consumer Price Index. In other words, the cost of cable went up nearly four times the consumer prices people pay for everything else. You can only do that when you have a monopoly.

Over the last 15 years, this rise in cost has become even more evident. According to the FCC, the price of expanded basic cable has gone up at a compound average annual growth rate of 6.1 percent during the period from 1995 to 2011. This means that the average annual cable price has gone up about $25 a month from 1995, to over $54 today. That is a 100-percent price increase. People are on fixed incomes. People are hurting. Why in the world should they have a 100-percent cost increase? The only way it can be done is through monopolies.

Those that provide video directly to consumers, such as cable and satellite companies, are not solely to blame for the high prices consumers face today. Many articles have been written about the packages of channels--commonly called bundles--that are sold to cable and satellite companies by video programmers such as Comcast, NBC, Time Warner, Viacom, and the Walt Disney Company, which owns 80 percent of

Mr. President, today I come to the floor to speak in support of the nomination of Mrs. Sylvia Mathews Burwell, to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget, OMB. Her previous experience as Deputy Director of OMB during the Clinton administration, as well as her work with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and her current position as president of the Walmart Foundation in my opinion, make her well qualified to be the Director of OMB.

With our country now facing a $16.8 trillion dollar debt, which is more than $53,000 per person, the Director of OMB is perhaps the toughest job in Washington, and I am confident that Mrs. Burwell is up for the challenge. In addition to the unsustainable debt, $85 billion in draconian, across-the-board sequestration cuts to defense and nondefense programs in fiscal year 2013 have now started to hollow out our military. I hope to work with Mrs. Burwell to remedy these cuts that are devastating to our national security.

Although Mrs. Burwell and I will not always agree on how we tackle our

country's urgent fiscal challenges, I am confident that she will commit to finding bipartisan solutions to these real problems. Solutions that will provide greater program efficiency and transparency and will put our country back on a path of fiscal stability so that future generations will not be forced to pay for the irresponsible spending decisions we continue to make here in Congress. Again, I am pleased that the President put forth such a qualified nominee, and I look forward to working with her.

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

Mr. President, there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about the position the Senator from South Carolina, I, and others have taken on the detention and interrogation of the suspect in the Boston bombing. None of us is saying the suspect should be indefinitely detained as an enemy combatant by the U.S. military or tried in a military tribunal. The suspect is a U.S. citizen and must be treated accordingly, and he will be. What we are saying is that the importance of treating the suspect in accordance with his rights as an American citizen must be balanced with our government's top national security priority, which is the lawful, effective, and humane interrogation of this subject for the purposes of gathering intelligence.

The Boston attacks were clearly inspired by the violent ideology of transnational Islamist terrorism. We need to learn everything we can about what foreign terrorists or terrorist groups the suspect and his brother may have associated with, whether they were part of additional plots to attack our Nation, and what other relevant information the suspect may possess that could prevent future attacks against the United States or our interests.

We need to delve further into this whole issue of the education some people who are motivated by these base ideologies obtain over the Internet and the effect it is having. We should at least know about this.

Our civilian justice system offers a responsible option for striking this balance with American citizens. It allows the Justice Department to delay reading a suspect his Miranda rights if doing so is in the interest of ``public safety.'' The administration had rightly invoked this public safety exception in the case of the Boston suspect, which provided our national security professionals a discrete period of time to gather intelligence from the suspect without the presence of his lawyer.

However, soon after questioning him in this manner, the administration recently reversed itself and read the suspect his Miranda rights. In doing so, the administration gave up a valuable opportunity to lawfully and thoroughly

question the suspect for purposes of gathering intelligence about potential future terrorist plots. Whether we will be able to acquire such information has now been left entirely at the discretion of the suspect and his lawyer. Put simply, the suspect has been told he has the right to remain silent. If he doesn't want to provide intelligence, he doesn't need to.

Is this a responsible balance between a citizen's rights and our national security? The suspect had only been responsive for a couple of days before he was read his Miranda rights. Even then, he could not communicate verbally. Does anyone really believe our national security professionals were able to acquire all of the relevant intelligence possessed by a subject who couldn't speak in only 2 days? This is not a responsible balance between civil liberties and national security.

From the very beginning of this debate, the Senator from South Carolina, the Senator from New Hampshire, I, and others have maintained that the administration should reserve its right to hold the suspect as an enemy combatant for the purpose of gathering intelligence. This was not the only option or even the ideal option. In light of the administration's decision not to continue questioning the suspect under the public safety exception, the only option we are left with is lawfully questioning the suspect as a potential enemy combatant.

The full extent of whether the suspect is linked to al-Qaida or its associated forces remains unclear. The brother's trip to Russia certainly should be the subject of an inquiry. Additional questioning is critical to making it clear.

Today there is ample evidence that would allow the administration to question the suspect for key intelligence. The consequence of not doing so is that our need to question the suspect for such intelligence is left solely at his discretion and willingness to cooperate. This is not a responsible approach to the national security of this country.

Again, this is not to say that we must hold the suspect indefinitely in military detention, nor that the suspect must be or should be tried in a military tribunal. In both cases, there is plenty of precedence for holding a terrorism suspect as an enemy combatant for a limited time before moving him into the criminal justice system for the purpose of standing trial in civil court. What is more, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the legality and constitutionality of this approach, as well as the ability to hold American citizens as enemy combatants. Ultimately, the broader question is whether one views the United States as part of the battlefield in the global fight against terrorists. I know some don't. I, however, do not see how we can avoid this fact. Those who seek to attack us certainly view the homeland as part of the battlefield--indeed, the central part.

Of course, there will always be and should be differences in how we handle events in the United States and events overseas and differences in what rights are due to American citizens as opposed to foreign citizens. Yet we cannot afford to build a wall between the fight against terrorists abroad and the fight against terrorists who are trying to attack us here at home, including when American citizens are involved in this fight, as some clearly are, and will continue to be.

Just because some don't seem to want to grapple with the difficult, unprecedented legal issues this war presents does not mean they will cease to be real challenges. If we pretend the homeland, the United States of America, is not part of this battle, I believe it will only be a matter of time before we learn this lesson the hard way.

I say to many who are reporting on this issue, I hope it is clearly understood that we are not saying the suspect should be indefinitely detained as an enemy combatant by the U.S. military or tried in a military tribunal. The suspect is a U.S. citizen and must be treated accordingly, and he will be.

During the now-famous discussion of 13 hours on the floor of the Senate, there were certain comments made that I think are important to recall.

The battlefield coming to America or acknowledging that is

an enormous mistake.

I am quoting from the debate that took place.

Alarm bells should go off when people tell you that the

battlefield's in America.

I'm here to argue that we can't let America be a

battlefield because we can't say that we're no longer going

to have due process, that we're no longer going to have trial

by jury, that we're no longer going to have presentment of

charges in grand juries. It is impossible in a battlefield.

This is another quote:

[W]hen people say, oh, the battlefield's come to America

and the battlefield's every--where the war is limitless in

time and scope, be worried, because your rights will not

exist if you call America a battlefield for all time.

The Chair understands as well as anyone that the people of Boston and the people of Massachusetts, of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, would clearly take exception to a statement such as ``the battlefield coming to America or acknowledging that is an enormous mistake.'' The people of Boston are very well aware that the battle comes to the United States. There are many attempts for it to come to the United States. Tragically, it came to the United States of America in a most tragic and terrible way.

We need to have a larger debate here about the location of the battlefield. To somehow believe the ultimate target of these radical Islamic extremists and other extremist elements is not the United States of America is a gross misreading of what this fight against terrorism is all about.

Quoting from a Wall Street Journal editorial, as I have done in the past:

The Boston bombing also ought to chasten libertarians who

keep insisting that the U.S. homeland is not part of the

terror battlefield.

``It's different overseas than it will be here. It's

different in the battlefield than it will be here,'' [one

Member] told Fox News earlier this year. ``Which gets

precisely to the argument I have with some other Republicans

who say, well, `the battlefield is everywhere. There is no

limitation.' President Obama says this. Some members of my

party say the battle has no geographic limitations and the

laws of war apply. It's important to know that the law of war

that they're talking about means no due process.''

Boylston Street looked like a boulevard on Monday, and so

did Watertown on Thursday night. The artificial distinction

[arises from undue] focus on geography. The vital distinction

for public safety is between common criminals, who deserve

due process protections, and enemy combatants at war with the

U.S., wherever they are.

As for due process, the greatest danger to liberty would be

to allow more such attacks that would inspire an even greater

public backlash against Muslims or free speech or worse. The

anti-terror types on the left and GOP Senators who agree that

the U.S. isn't part of the battlefield are making the United

States more vulnerable.

Americans erupted in understandable relief and gratitude on

Friday with the rapid capture of the terrorist brothers. But

we shouldn't forget that their attack succeeded, with

horrific consequences for the dead, the wounded and their

loved ones. The main goal now is to prevent the next attack.

How do we prevent the next attack? We find out as much information as possible as to what motivated this attack.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from South Carolina be included in the colloquy.

We wish to make sure our position is very clear. We are not saying the subject should be indefinitely detained by the U.S. military or tried in a military tribunal. The suspect is a U.S. citizen and must be treated accordingly, and he will be.

The tragic events we saw in Boston bring home again that this fight is far from over. I don't know if these young men were motivated by the information they received, whether it was overseas or whether it was due to the Internet and various influences there. What we do know is that while living in this country, they changed from apparently normal young people into terrorists who were willing to do anything to take the lives of their fellow American citizens.

The battlefield is the United States of America. Anyone who doesn't believe this ignores the events from which we are recovering.

I yield to the Senator from South Carolina, who has probably been more widely quoted than I have, and request that he clear up this exact situation we are calling for which, frankly, is being portrayed inaccurately in a great deal of the media.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Hampshire be included in the colloquy.

I ask my colleague for a comment on the issue of whether the United States of America is a battlefield. Does my colleague agree with the quote, ``The battlefield coming to America or acknowledging that is an enormous mistake''?

Finally, again, if there were information of an imminent attack, such as the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania that might have been headed for the Capitol, we would take whatever measures necessary to prevent it from happening. To somehow say we would not use every capability in our arsenal to prevent that goes back again to this fundamental error, fundamental misconception about the nature of radical extremists where the battlefield clearly is the United States, and we should be most prepared.

And, by the way, if there is some good news that came out of Boston, it was that some of the measures that had been taken since 9/11 contributed significantly to our ability to track down and eliminate this threat far more rapidly than we would have prior to 9/11.

Mr. President, given the importance of this debate, I believe it is important for me to explain why I am supporting amendment No. 715, offered by Senators Manchin and Toomey, to S. 649, the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013.

Like all Americans, my heart goes out to the people of Newtown, Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado; Tucson, Arizona, and all other cities and towns impacted by senseless gun violence. These tragic events are impossible to fully comprehend unless you were there and extremely difficult to relate to unless you experience the effects personally. The rest of us are left with more questions than answers, and differing--albeit well-intentioned--solutions designed to preserve our way of life while doing our best to ensure these horrible events are less likely tomorrow.

As everyone is aware, in January of 2011, the citizens of my home State--as well as people around the country and world--were shocked and horrified by the senseless violence of a severely disturbed young man with a gun. Six people were killed and 13 injured. One of those victims was a bright young Congressional staffer named Gabe Zimmerman, who was highly regarded by his colleagues and had a future filled only with promise. Yesterday, here in the Capitol at a room dedication for Gabe Zimmerman, we were provided with a very real portrait of a man who was doing what he loved, serving the people of Arizona, when his life was tragically cut short. I think his father's comments are worth repeating today. Ross Zimmerman, Gabe's father, said:

An echo of Gabriel will persist, perhaps for centuries. It

isn't worth the loss, but the echo is good and true. . . . I

ask that you and our descendents take inspiration from my

son's echo as you conduct the affairs of this Congress and

the affairs of this nation.

Another life impacted by those tragic events is that of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Her life, while still filled with great promise, was unalterably changed that fateful day. Congresswoman Giffords, and her loving husband Captain Mark Kelly--who are both with us here in Washington today to witness this debate--reflect the determination of the American spirit and are beautiful examples of how good really does triumph over evil.

Gabby, Mark and the countless other examples of heroism and resilience that America witnessed in Tucson, Aurora, Newtown and elsewhere around the Nation, are clear reminders of why we are all here serving, and the gravity of the issues we are asked to address. Their presence here today further reminds us that we are here to serve a cause greater than our own self-interest. There is nothing like looking in the eyes of a still-grieving parent who has just lost a young son or daughter to remind you of that fact.

For over three decades in Congress, I have built as strong a record as anyone in this body in defending the Second Amendment. I have consistently opposed the efforts of anti-gun activists to ban guns and ammunition, staunchly defending the Constitutional rights that Arizonans hold dear. I have voted against assault weapons bans because I believed they would not work and opposed efforts to cripple firearms manufacturers by making them liable for the acts of violent criminals. I have proudly lent my signature to Supreme Court briefs defending an individual's right to bear arms. In my view, the wisdom of our Framers' inclusion of the right to bear arms is self-evident. And as an Arizonan, I understand the significance of gun ownership to the people of the West, whether for self-defense, sport, or simple ownership.

Just as I have long defended the Second Amendment to the Constitution, I have also long believed that it is perfectly reasonable to use available tools to conduct limited background checks, as this amendment prescribes, to help ensure that felons and the mentally-ill do not obtain guns they should not possess. In my view, such background checks are not overly burdensome or unconstitutional.

Is this a perfect solution? No. Would it prevent all future acts of gun violence? Of course not. Would it have prevented the most recent acts of gun violence? In all likelihood, no. But, it is reasonable and it is constitutional.

I approach the issue of gun rights with profound respect for our Constitution, and the freedoms and rights that it bestows on each and every one of us. I am also guided by a firm commitment that we should do everything we can, within the bounds of the Constitution and the principles of individual rights and federalism on which it is based, to stem the rising tide of gun violence in this country. In this instance, neither the United States Supreme Court nor the lower Federal courts have held that restrictions on possession for certain classes of individuals violate the Second Amendment. In Heller v. District of Columbia, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to a well-armed militia. In his Majority opinion, Justice Scalia observed:

Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on

longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by

felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying

of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and

government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and

qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

In this instance, I agree with Justice Scalia that a background check system is not a restriction of the Second Amendment right to keep arms. The issue is plain to me because a background check system only seeks to ensure that sellers of firearms do not transfer guns to a prohibited class of owners. Restrictions on ownership by certain classes of people have existed in federal law for 45 years and have not been constitutionally invalidated by the courts.

In addition to Constitutional concerns, many have expressed concerns about the establishment of a national gun registry. If this amendment would establish such a registry, I would oppose it. But, it does not. In fact, the amendment reinforces the existing Federal ban of a national firearms registry. The amendment explicitly states, ``Nothing in this title, or any amendment made by this title, shall be construed to allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a Federal firearms registry.'' But, the amendment does not stop there. It would also provide for a harsh penalty of 15 years for any person who attempts to create a registry and re-affirms that any regulations issued by the Department of Justice to ensure criminals and the mentally ill do not obtain firearms cannot create a firearms registry.

Mr. President, every once in a while I have seen some acts of political courage and quite often we praise each other and ourselves, directly or indirectly, for the positions we take and the votes we pass. I wish to take a moment and express my appreciation to the two sponsors of this amendment, Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey. Both come from States where there are avid and dedicated and legitimate gun rights advocates. It would have been easier for both Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey to ignore this situation and not reach across the aisle to each other to see if we could come up with what I think most Americans--in fact, I have seen polls indicating that 80 percent of the American people--support, reasonable background checks that do not infringe on the constitutional rights of our citizens. I congratulate both Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey for taking this position.

You may not win today, I say to my two colleagues, but I will say that you did the right thing. You did the right thing. It has been my experience, as a Senator in this body for some years who has not always done the right thing, that doing the right thing is always a reward in itself.

Sooner or later this country will take up this issue and it will take up the mentally ill issue, and I hope it will take up Hollywood violence, and I hope it will take up those programs that may incite young people to go out and want to acquire a weapon and use it. But what they have tried to do today I think is an act that should be appreciated by those of us who, many times, avoid taking the tough decisions. I think they are an example to all of us.

I yield.

I thank my colleague.

Amendment No. 730

Mr. President, today I honor an exceptional warrior. After a lifetime of service to our Nation, GEN Carter F. Ham is retiring from the U.S. Army and his current position as Commander of the U.S. Africa Command. On this occasion I believe it is fitting to recognize General Ham's years of uniformed service to our Nation.

General Ham has served and led at all levels in the Army. He began his career as an enlisted infantryman in the 82nd Airborne Division and he retires as a theater level commander. He was commissioned as a second lieutenant through the Reserve Officers' Training Corps in the Infantry as a Distinguished Military Graduate of John Carroll University in Cleveland, OH in 1976. General Ham's distinguished military service has taken him all over the United States, Italy and Germany. Prior to his current command he served as the commanding general of U.S. Army Europe.

During these last 24 months as Commander, U.S. Africa Command, he has led combat operations to oust a tyrant, coordinated economic and infrastructural development programs to improve conditions on the ground, and orchestrated international security cooperation activities aimed at strengthening the abilities of American and African forces to deal with the range of complex challenges facing the continent. These were no small tasks and all the while he continued to make the well- being of our service men and women his highest priority. I can think of no better leader to have had carrying the guidon!

Our Nation and our international partners will feel the loss of this distinguished soldier and statesman. I join many members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in expressing my respect and gratitude to General Ham for his outstanding service to our Nation. The strength of our Nation is our Army; the strength of our Army is our soldiers. Thank you, General Ham, for your service as a soldier and general, and for keeping our Nation Army Strong! I wish him and his wife Christi ``fair winds and following seas.''