Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I honor an exceptional warrior. After a lifetime of service to our Nation, Gen. John R. Allen is retiring from the U.S. Marine Corps. On this occasion I believe it is fitting to recognize General Allen's years of uniformed service to our Nation.

The general was commissioned a second lieutenant following graduation from the Naval Academy with the class of 1976. He has led at every level from platoon to theater command, including being the first Marine Commandant of the U.S. Naval Academy. He spent 2 years in Iraq's Anbar province, where he led an effort to reach out to Sunni tribal leaders to try to persuade them to stand against al-Qaida militants--a shift that helped turn the course of the war in western Iraq. And during his recent command in Afghanistan, which he proclaimed to be ``the honor of a lifetime,'' he spent 19 months winding down America's longest war while strengthening Afghanistan's military to fight insurgency.

General Allen's record of service is remarkable and highly decorated. He has distinguished himself in every aspect from graduating with academic honors to receiving some of the highest military awards of the U.S. and foreign armed forces. However, he recognizes the most important distinction, and that is his family. In the last decade he has spent plenty of time away from his family in service to our Nation. He said that his family had not vacationed

since his two adult daughters were young. His service and sacrifice will truly be missed by a grateful nation, and we hope that he gets that vacation he so clearly deserves and more.

Our Nation will feel the loss of this distinguished officer, warrior and patriot; however, I have the utmost respect for his decision to put his family first. I join many members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in expressing my respect and gratitude to General Allen for his outstanding service to our Nation. I wish him and his wife Kathy ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. President, today I honor an exceptional warrior and scholar. After a lifetime of service to our Nation, Gen. James N. Mattis is retiring from the U.S. Marine Corps and his current position as Commander of the United States Central Command. On this occasion I believe it is fitting to recognize General Mattis' 41 years of uniformed service to our Nation.

The general was commissioned a second lieutenant on January 1, 1972. He has served in every major combat operation of his era and led at every level from platoon to theater command. Upon promotion to brigadier general, he commanded first the 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade and then Task Force 58, during Operation Enduring Freedom in southern Afghanistan. As a major general, he commanded the 1st Marine Division during the initial attack and subsequent stability operations in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom. General Mattis led marines into Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003--the defining conflicts of our age.

General Mattis is well known for his dedication and intellect. When selected to command the U.S. Central Command, then Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, called him ``one of the military's most innovative and iconoclastic thinkers.'' He has proved to be that and more. General Mattis is known to carry books on philosophy with him on every combat mission. He is said to have a personal library of over 6,000 books that he takes with him to every new command. Even more important than his intellect and bravery, is his ability to connect with and lead our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. In March 2003, he wrote a letter to all forces under his command, telling them to ``engage your brain before you engage your weapon.'' I have had the pleasure of meeting those under his command and am always impressed by the respect and favor he carries amongst them.

I most respect General Mattis' willingness to speak truth to power. His candor is a facet of a professionalism that has been exacted over a lifetime and exercised during a most impressive military career. Thoughtful leaders throughout government will feel his absence. I join many past and present members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in my gratitude to General Mattis for his outstanding leadership and his unwavering support of servicemembers. General James Mattis' service has evinced the meaning of the words ``Semper Fidelis.'' I wish him ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. President, for years many of the largest U.S. multinational corporations have been exploiting offshore tax haven loopholes in the U.S. Tax Code to avoid paying billions in U.S. corporate income tax.

According to a recent Bloomberg report analyzing publicly available U.S. corporate financial data, ``Eighty-three U.S. companies have stockpiled $1.43 trillion in untaxed profits in foreign countries.'' According to the same report, ``THE six biggest U.S. drug-makers avoided paying $7.05 billion in U.S. taxes last year by shifting their profits overseas,'' nearly doubling ``the amount they saved using the same strategy 10 years earlier.''

It is time for Congress to close the special interest loopholes that allow sophisticated multinational corporations to defer U.S. income tax through various foreign tax sheltering techniques and offshore tax havens. Senator Levin's amendment No. 430 supports legislation to end the abuse of offshore tax shelters. I am cosponsoring this amendment to begin the process of closing the egregious loopholes.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the 70th anniversary of the commissioning of Naval Air Station, NAS, Patuxent River. On April 1, 1943 the base was commissioned and the Navy Department issued the following press release:

``Naval Air Station, Patuxent, situated on a 6,500-acre tract at Cedar Point, Maryland, was commissioned today with Rear Admiral John S. McCain, U.S.N., Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics; Rear Admiral F. L. Reichmuth, U.S.N., Commandant of the Potomac River Naval Command, and Representative Landsdale G. Sasscer of Maryland speaking at the commissioning exercises.

The commissioning address was made by Rear Admiral Reichmuth who turned the situation over to Commander William T. Rassieur, U.S.N., of 1429 South Westmoreland Avenue, Los Angeles, California.

Naval Air Station, Patuxent, will be one of the finest and largest Navy aviation establishments in the East when construction work is completed. It will combine and concentrate flying and operating aspects of experimental work previously conducted at Naval Air Station, Anacostia, and Norfolk, and at the Naval Aircraft Factory, Philadelphia. It will serve also as the East Coast terminal for Naval Air Transport Service, now located at Norfolk.

The new station is 60 airline miles southeast of Washington, D.C. Six thousand people have been employed constructing the station, beginning work on March 1, 1942.

Facilities for both land and seaplanes have been installed, while docks also have been constructed for vessels which will handle freight in connection with activities of the air transport unit.

In addition to seaplane ramps, the field has three runways for land plane. The largest is 10,000 feet in length and 500 feet wide, while the remaining two are 6,000 feet long and 300 feet wide. Four hangars for all types of planes are among the 45 buildings of the station.

When fully staffed the station will have several thousand officers and men.''

Mr. President, as noted earlier in the Navy's press release, my Grandfather then Rear Admiral McCain, was a speaker at the commissioning in 1943. In his speech he said, ``I have every reason to expect that under your expert guidance this work will be done more rapidly and more efficiently, and that it will rapidly increase in scope and its effectiveness, as it must do for naval aviation to meet its present problems and to hold its proper place as an outstanding major air service of the world.''

Mr. President, today NAS Patuxent River, commonly referred to as Pax River, hosts over 17,000 people, including active-duty servicemembers, civil-service employees, defense contractor employees, and military dependents. NAS Patuxent River is home to the Naval Air Systems Command, NAVAIR, Headquarters, Air Test Wing Atlantic, U.S. Naval Test Pilot School, Scientific Development Squadron 1, Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 20, Rotary Wing Test Squadron 21, and Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23.

For nearly 70 years, the dedicated men and women of NAS Pax River have made the impossible possible, turning theory into experiment and experiment into operational capability. The dedicated and skilled workforce of NAS Patuxent River has made innumerable contributions to the aerospace industry, the Naval Aviation Enterprise, and the economic and national security of the United States. Their attention to detail is directly reflected in the record of excellence of United States Naval Aviation. During both war and peace their meticulous and exacting work to support the defense of our Nation has continued, ensuring, as my grandfather expected, that naval aviation meets its present problems and holds its proper place as an outstanding major air service of the world.

While the historic sites, natural resources, and technology contained within its gates make it a unique destination; it is undoubtedly the people of Naval Air Station Patuxent River and their distinguished service that make it an irreplaceable National asset. On April 1, 2013, they will celebrate the 70th anniversary of the base commissioning. In recognition of this major milestone I wish them continued success in their future endeavors.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate on the continuing resolution.

Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss the continuing resolution we will vote on perhaps today or tomorrow.

This bill is much more than a continuing resolution and includes five separate appropriations bills. Our country now faces a $16.6 trillion debt, which is more than $52,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. It is time for Congress to go back to the business of voting on and passing annual budget resolutions, authorization bills, and appropriations bills, instead of a huge Omnibus appropriations bill such as the one before us today.

This continuing resolution includes numerous examples of egregious porkbarrel projects as well as billions in spending that was never authorized by the appropriate committee and not requested by the administration. The American taxpayer expects more and deserves more than what we are giving them in this bill.

One unfortunate example of Congress overstepping in this CR is the ongoing inclusion of an appropriations rider that prohibits the Postal Service from moving to 5-day mail delivery. This congressional mandate was put in place in 1984, and it is a roadblock, keeping the Postal Service from transforming the way it delivers mail while still being able to provide universal service. The Postal Service lost $1.3 billion in the first quarter of this year and recorded a loss of $15.9 billion in fiscal year 2012. So what are we telling them to do? Business as usual.

With the reality that the Postal Service will continue with devastating and unsustainable losses, the Postmaster General announced last month that the Postal Service would move to 5-day mail delivery later this year, which he estimates will save $2 billion annually. However, some in Congress who have decided they know better than the leadership of the Postal Service are moving to prohibit the Postal Service from modernizing and transforming the way it does business.

Congress must accept the fact that the Postal Service's current way of doing business is no longer viable. We now correspond by e-mail. We now correspond by different methods. It was terrible when the bridle- and-saddle business went out on the advent of the automobile. Things and times have changed. A huge percentage of the mail delivered today is what we call junk mail advertising. It is no longer the primary way Americans--and people in the world, for that matter--communicate. The American public conducts business in a different way than even 5 years ago. We have to allow the Postal Service to adapt to changing times in order to have a Postal Service in the future, and this includes 5-day mail delivery.

The Postal Service loses $1.3 billion in the first quarter, $15.9 billion last year, and do we come up with a fix for it? Do we address the issue? Of course not. There is nothing in this bill that would change that debt. There is nothing in this legislation that fixes the broken Postal Service. But there is a prohibition from them going to 5- day mail delivery which would save $2 billion. Now, you still have about $13.9 billion left over, if it is like last year.

So here we are telling the Postal Service they can't go to 5-day delivery, but we have no fix for this problem.

And who picks up the tab? Obviously, eventually it is the American taxpayer. No wonder they view us with certain disdain.

In addition to this rider, the bill includes porkbarrel spending for things such as--and I am not making them up. Here we are with this debt of $16.6 trillion, and we are going to spend $65 million for the Pacific Coast salmon restoration for States, including the State of Nevada. I am not making that up, $65 million for the Pacific Coast salmon restoration, including in Nevada--a program that even President Obama mocked in his 2011 State of the Union Address; $14.7 million for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Watershed Rehabilitation Program, which the administration has suggested eliminating for years--$993,000 in grants to dig private wells for private property owners; $10 billion for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's high energy cost grants programs that go to subsidize electricity bills in two States: Alaska and Hawaii; $5.9 million for the USDA's economic impact initiative grants.

The economic impact initiative grants have become slush funds for local governments to do such things as rehab an exercise room, renovate a museum on the Pacific Island of Palau, and buy kitchen equipment for city government offices.

Now I would like to talk a bit about defense spending. This is probably the most painful part of my comments, and I will explain why later on.

Defense spending includes over $6 billion in unrequested or unauthorized funding for programs for the Department of Defense. At a time when the Department of Defense is facing the impact of sequestration, on top of the $487 billion in cuts directed by the President, we can't afford to spend a single taxpayer dollar on programs that are not a priority for the Defense Department and our national security.

The following things are beginning to happen now that the Department of Defense is under sequestration: The Navy was unable to deploy the USS Truman, an aircraft carrier, to the Middle East at a time when the centrifuges in Tehran are spinning; 80 percent of the Army's nondeploying brigades have reduced readiness; Army base operations have been reduced 30 percent; the Navy is reducing flying hours on deployed carriers in the Middle East by 55 percent and shut down all flying for four of the nine carrier air wings. If funding is restored, returning to normal readiness will take 9 to 12 months and cost two to three times as much.

The Air Force is delaying planned acquisition of satellites and aircraft, including JSF and the AC-130J, which will increase the future cost of these systems. And the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps has said:

By the end of this year, more than 50 percent of my

tactical units will be below minimal acceptable levels of

readiness for deployment to combat.

My friends, here we are spending money on this kind of junk, on this kind of pork, while the Commandant of the Marine Corps says by the end of this year more than 50 percent of his combat units will be below minimal acceptable levels of readiness for deployment to combat? In what kind of parallel universe are we residing?

Instead of trying to remedy these drastic reductions to our military strength, the appropriators are willing to overstep the authorizers and defense leadership and provide increased funding for nonessential programs that are clearly not a national security priority. The Armed Services Committee went to great lengths last year to authorize defense spending for the most critical national security requirements as proposed by the President and defense leadership.

Last week I offered an amendment, which was approved by a very narrow margin, that removed funding in the bill for civilian infrastructure-- not military infrastructure, mind you, civilian infrastructure--for Guam. This earmark for Guam directly contravened the explicit direction provided by the Armed Services Committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives in the conference report on the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act and, in my opinion, is a clear example of abuse of the appropriations process. I say to my colleagues, we are not going to stand for it. I say to my friends on the Appropriations Committee, we will not stand for this.

Funding for the STARBASE Program. This ``nice to have but not necessary to have'' program will receive $5 million. According to its Web site, STARBASE focuses on elementary students, primarily fifth graders. The program's goal is to motivate these students to explore science, technology, engineering, and math as they continue their education. Military volunteers apply abstract principles to real-world situations by leading tours and giving lectures on the use of STEM in different settings and careers.

I am sure that is a nice thing to happen. I am sure STARBASE is nice so that fifth graders are able to hear from members in the military. Meanwhile, we can't deploy an aircraft carrier. With a war going on, a budget crisis at our doorstep, this is how we elect to spend our taxpayers' defense money.

Another example is $11.3 million in increase for the Civil Air Program or CAP. CAP is a volunteer organization that provides aerospace education to young people, runs a junior cadet program, and assists, when possible, by providing emergency services. Its members are hard working. We are grateful for their voluntarism.

This year, as in the past, the Senate Armed Services Committee authorized the President's request for CAP funding. However, CAP is an auxiliary and should not operate to the detriment of the U.S. Air Force. To succeed at their missions, the Air Force must be able to fly and train at locations such as Luke Air Force Base, which is threatened with reduced flight hours and the closure of two local control towers that could impact air safety around the base. By diverting additional funds--not the primary funding but additional funds--to the Civil Air Patrol from Air Force operations and maintenance accounts which pay for the training and flight operations that keep the Air Force in the sky, we are imposing greater risk on our men and women in uniform.

The bill includes $154 million for Army, Navy, and Air Force ``alternative energy research'' initiatives. This type of research has yielded such shining examples as the Department of the Navy's purchase of 450,000 gallons of alternative fuels for $12 million, which is over $26 per gallon. Alternative energy research might be necessary, but shouldn't the Department of Energy do it? Why should the Department of Defense do it, when we cannot fly our airplanes?

Section 1822 prohibits the retirement of the C-23 Sherpa aircraft. The Army is currently retiring or divesting the remainder of its fleet of old, limited-duty C-23s, all of which are flown by the Army National Guard. The Army neither wants nor needs these aircraft. The Air Force neither wants nor needs these aircraft. Last year the Congress granted the Army authority to give these planes to any State Governor who wanted them. Guess what. No takers. Now we prevent the Army from retiring these limited-utility aircraft.

Another provision provides $15 million for an ``incentive program'' that directs the Department of Defense to overpay on contracts by an additional 5 percent if the contractor is a Native Hawaiian-owned company. If there were ever an example of the special interest pork barrel spending that goes on in this body and infuriates the American people, it is this--$15 million of Americans' tax dollars is going to any Native Hawaiian-owned company to give them an additional 5 percent if they are a contractor. Here we are, spending all our time trying to eliminate the waste and inefficiency in defense contracting, and we are now spending $15 million to overpay them if--if they are a Native Hawaiian-owned company.

It will make it easier for the Department of Defense to enter into no-bid contracts for studies, analysis, and unsolicited proposals. The language in the bill makes it ripe for wasteful spending and earmarks for pet projects. For example, the Department of Defense may eliminate competition and use a no-bid contract for a ``product of original thinking and was submitted in confidence by one source.'' If there were ever an example of how pork barrel and earmark spending begins--``for a product of original thinking and was submitted in confidence by one source.''

Another section requires the Secretary of the Air Force to continue

procuring C-27J Spartan aircraft despite the Air Force's intent to end production and divest these aircraft, and $24 million to continue development on ACS, which was a canceled Army reconnaissance aircraft program.

Another goody for defense contractors: There is a recurring provision in the bill that allows Alaska Native corporations to circumvent the rules of the Office of Management and Budget that would otherwise require them to follow an open and fair competition process in order to obtain Department of Defense contracts.

The Department of Defense has a history of awarding billions of dollars in large, sole-source, no-bid contracts to Alaska Native corporations abusively. This matter has been well documented by the Senate subcommittee on contracting, the inspectors general of the Department of Defense and the Small Business Administration. The Washington Post ran a series on the Alaska Native corporation contracting. Last year the Government Accountability Office found that the Department of Defense expeditiously awarded two $500 million, 10- year contracts using this same provision in a past appropriations bill.

Several of us on the Armed Services Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee have been trying to ensure that contracts to ANCs undergo extra scrutiny. It does not help that this bill is working against the American taxpayer while Congress should be working to make sure the Department of Defense acquires what it truly needs as economically as possible through competition.

There is $48 million in funding for the Defense Department to do research dealing with Parkinson's disease, neurofibromatosis, and HIV/ AIDS research. This research is important. It has no place in a Department of Defense bill. It should be funded by the National Institutes of Health, not the Department of Defense.

I ask unanimous consent to have a long list of unspecified and unauthorized and unnecessary and wasteful pork printed in the Record.

It is disgraceful. I see that my colleague from Texas is waiting to talk. This is absolutely unbelievable. All of this long list of billions of dollars of spending can only be considered as how obscene it is by listening to what the impacts of sequester have already been on the men and women in the military.

Sequester so far canceled four brigade exercises of training of the Army--that has been canceled. It reduces the base operations, the normal day-to-day operations of the base, by 30 percent; cancels half a year of helicopter and ground vehicle depot maintenance; stops postwar repair of 1,300 vehicles and 17,000 weapons. It reduces the readiness of the Army's nondeploying brigades and stops tuition assistance for all Active-Duty and Reserve men and women in the Army.

In the Navy, it cancels several submarine deployments; reduces flying hours on deployed carriers in the Middle East by 55 percent--and believe me, my friends, unless they are able to operate and train, they are not safe and they are not capable. It reduces the western Pacific deployed operations by 35 percent; nondeployed Pacific ships lose 40 percent of their steaming days; reduces Middle East, Atlantic, and Mediterranean ballistic missile defense patrols. It shuts down all flying of four of our nine carrier air wings--that has been shut down 9 to 12 months. It will take 9 to 12 months to restore normal readiness at two to three times the cost. It cuts all major exercises that are going on and defers emergent repairs; the USS Truman deployment to the Middle East delayed indefinitely; the Eisenhower carrier deployment extended indefinitely; the USS Nimitz and Bush carrier strike force will not be ready for scheduled 2013 deployments.

The Air Force--likely to prevent the Air Force's ability to achieve the 2017 goal of being fully auditable; over 420 projects at 140 installations across the Air Force are canceled; affects runway repairs and critical sustainment projects; delays planned acquisition of satellites and aircraft; reduces flying hours for cargo, fighter, and bomber aircraft.

In the Marine Corps, the Marine Corps is unable to complete the rebalancing of Marine Corps forces to the Asia Pacific region. It will cause 55 percent of the U.S. Marine Corps aviation squad to fall below ready-to-deploy status. Over half of the aviation squadrons in the U.S. Marine Corps are not ready to deploy. The U.S. Marine Corps will not be able to accomplish planned reset of equipment returning from overseas. Depot-level maintenance will be reduced, delaying reset ability by 18 months and reducing readiness of nondeployed forces. Facilities will be funded at 71 percent of the requirement.

Most important--maybe Members of Congress do not have a lot of credibility. Maybe that is understandable. I will leave that up to the American people to judge. I do think we respect the Commandant of the Marine Corps and what he had to say. I repeat:

By the end of this year, more than 50 percent of my combat

units will be below minimum acceptable levels of readiness

for deployment to combat.

Over the weekend, there was a gathering in our Nation's Washington, DC, area of a group of our conservative

Americans and members of the Republican Party, and references were made to people who were too old and moss-covered, that we need new and fresh individuals and ideas and thoughts. I agree with all of those--every bit of those recommendations and comments that were made.

But there is a little bit of benefit of having been around for a while. My friends, I will tell you right now, I have seen this movie before. I saw it after the Vietnam war. When the Vietnam war was over, Americans were war-weary. We had been driven apart in a way that was almost unprecedented in our history--certainly maybe as far back as our Civil War. America was torn apart.

The first casualty of that was our military. Our military was cut and cut and cut, to the point where, in 1979, I believe it was, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army came before Congress and testified. It was kind of a seminal moment. He told the Congress and the American people that we had a ``hollow Army'' that would be unable to defend this Nation adequately.

It also happened to coincide with when a group of brave Americans were being held hostage in the Embassy in Tehran, made famous by a fantastic movie called ``Argo.'' Along came a guy named Ronald Reagan who promised that we would restore our military, that we would restore our capability, that we would make America the leader in the world again, and a simple phrase called ``peace through strength.''

I want to tell you what we are doing with this sequestration. What we are doing with this sequestration is an exact replay of what we did after the Vietnam war. I understand that the American people are war- weary. I understand that there are savings that can be made--large savings made in our defense spending. But to do it like this puts the security of this Nation in jeopardy.

We are blessed with the finest military ever in our history. I say that with great respect to my predecessors who fought in previous wars. Our All-Volunteer Force is the best this Nation has ever produced. It is the best of America. We all know that. Do you know what is happening to them right now? I will tell you what is happening to them right now because I talk to them all the time. They don't know where their next deployment is going to be. They don't know if they are going to be adequately trained to defend this Nation. They have lost confidence-- they have lost confidence in the leadership of this Nation. And the good ones, the really good ones, are getting out. They are not going to stay in a military in which they believe there is no future and they are unable to defend this Nation. I tell my colleagues that. Ask anyone in the military today--junior officer, senior officer, senior enlisted person--and they will tell you they are disgusted with what is going on.

The least we can do is give them the ability to train and to operate to defend this Nation. This sequester and this legislation we are considering is a direct contradiction to everything we have said and promised them that we would do for them when they agreed as a volunteer to serve this Nation. It is a shameful period in the history of this Congress, the Presidency, and the way we have gone about this business. We will maybe--very likely--pay a very heavy price.

Madam President, I am grateful for the kind words and sentiment expressed by my leader Senator McConnell, and I appreciate very much his kind remarks. On this anniversary day, I still think the greatest honor of my life was the privilege of serving in the company of heroes who inspired all of us to things that otherwise we may not have been capable of. It has been a great honor for me to serve with Senator McConnell as my leader in the Senate. On this particular day, I appreciate his very kind sentiments.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maryland. I can assure her that if she and I had served together in that place faraway, she would have been a very tough and courageous resister.

Madam President, I thank the chairwoman, Senator Mikulski, for allowing me to speak as if in morning business.

Syria

On March 15, 2011, thousands of Syrian men, women, and children in the city of Deraa gathered together in a public square that is known today as Dignity Square. They came together to peacefully protest against the Syrian regime's decision to arrest and torture a group of 15 teenagers whose crime had been exercising their universally recognized rights to free speech. Their crime was speaking truth to those in power in Syria. They sketched on the wall of their school a statement that remains true in Syria today: ``The people want the regime to fall.''

Since these peaceful calls for change were first heard in Syria 2 years ago, more than 70,000 men, women, and children have been massacred by the Assad regime. More than 1 million refugees have fled their country at a rate of 8,000 people each day as of last month, and 2.5 million people have been displaced within their country. Only the genocide in Rwanda and the first Iraq war have driven more people to refugee status over a similar period of time.

These facts and figures are startling. Behind each statistic is a profound human tragedy to which we cannot grow numb as the conflict in Syria presses on into a third year. I certainly cannot.

Last April Senator Joe Lieberman and I visited a Syrian refugee camp in southern Turkey, and earlier this year I traveled together with Senators Whitehouse, Ayotte, Blumenthal, and Coons to the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan. I have seen my share of suffering and death, but the horror I saw in those camps and the stories I heard still haunt me today. There were men who had lost all their children, women and girls who had been gang-raped, children who had been tortured, and none of these were the random acts of cruelty that sadly occur in war. Syrian Army defectors told us that killing, raping, and torture was what they were instructed to do as a tactic of terror and intimidation. So if I get a little emotional when I talk about Syria, that is why.

The cost--both strategic and humanitarian--of this conflict has been and will continue to be devastating. Earlier this week UNICEF released a report detailing the impact of Syria's 2-year conflict on the children of Syria. The report states:

In Syria, children have been exposed to grave human rights

violations, including killing and maiming, sexual violence,

torture, arbitrary detention, recruitment and use by armed

forces and groups, and exposure to explosive remnants of war.

. . . As millions of children inside Syria and across the

region witness their past and their future disappear amidst

the rubble and destruction of this prolonged conflict, the

risk of them becoming a lost generation grows every day.

The conflict in Syria is breeding a lost generation--a whole new generation of extremists. Earlier this year I met a Syrian teacher in the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan who told me that the generation of young Syrians growing up in these camps and inside Syria will take revenge on those who did nothing to help them in their hour of greatest need. We should be ashamed of our collective failure to come to the aid of the Syrian people. But more than that, we should be deeply concerned. As much as I want to disagree with that Syrian teacher, I am haunted by the belief that she is exactly right.

As the conflict of Syria enters its third year, we cannot lose sight of the clear trend toward escalation both in the nature and quality of the killing. In recent months the use of SCUD missiles against civilians fits into a pattern of forced escalation by the Assad regime over the past year.

In January 2012 the regime began to use artillery as Syrian opposition forces became more capable against regime ground forces. In June 2012 Assad escalated his use of air power because the rebels were gaining control of the countryside. Today the regime is intensifying its air campaign by firing SCUD missiles at civilian populations, which is taking a deadly toll, particularly in the north where thousands of civilians have been killed over the past several weeks.

The regime's escalation to Scud missiles--which can be used as delivery vehicles for chemical weapons--should be alarming to us all. According to a recent report from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Scud missiles can deliver a 1,000-pound, high-explosive warhead or a chemical agent and, as the report states:

The rebels have no means of knowing when the missiles have

been fired, where they are going, or what kinds of warheads

are on board. In fact, even with good intelligence

collection, there is no reliable way to know which Scuds have

been uploaded with chemical warheads.

Let there be no doubt that the threat of chemical weapons is real. I note this morning's headline from the Associated Press: ``Israel's Military Intelligence Chief says Syria's Assad readying to use chemical weapons.''

I ask unanimous consent that this article from the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

This is a dangerous and unfair fight, and the costs to the United States are significant. Russia and Iran are Assad's lifelines in this brutal fight. Iran continues to use Iraqi airspace to fly fighters and large quantities of weapons to Syria to help Assad with the killing. As many as 50,000 Syrians, militiamen, in Syria are being supported by Tehran and Hezbollah, according to a Washington Post report. Meanwhile, Russia continues to ship heavy weapons to Assad-- including, as senior Obama administration officials have stated, the very helicopter gunships the regime is currently using to bomb and shatter civilians.

As the United States and the international community stand idle, the consequences are clear. Syria will become a failed State in the heart of the Middle East, threatening both our ally Israel and our NATO ally Turkey. With or without Assad, the country will continue to devolve into a full-scale civil war that is increasingly sectarian, repressive, and unstable. In the meantime, more and more ungoverned space will come under the control of al-Qaida and its allies. Violence and radicalism will spill even more into Lebanon and Iraq, fueling sectarian conflicts that are still burning in both countries. Syria will turn into a battlefield between Sunni and Shia extremists, each backed by foreign powers which will ignite sectarian tensions from North America to the gulf and risk a wider regional conflict. This is the course we are on in Syria, and in the absence of international action, the situation will only get worse.

Although Secretary Kerry and other administration officials have said our goal in Syria is to ``change Assad's calculus'' and make room for a negotiated transition, the truth is, in the absence

of a shift in the balance of military power on the ground, that is a hopeless goal. What the administration does not seem to realize is what President Bill Clinton came to understand in Bosnia--that a diplomatic resolution in conflict such as this is not possible until the military balance of power changes on the ground. As long as a murderous dictator, be it Slobodan Milosevic or Bashar al-Assad, believes he is winning on the battlefield, he has no incentive to stop fighting and negotiate.

Our European powers--led by the French and British--seem to understand this clearly, which is why they are urgently working to persuade their allies to lift an embargo to supply arms to the Syrian opposition. They understand that only a change in military power will bring this conflict to an end.

The same is true for the regime's foreign supporters. Despite destroying Russia's reputation in the Arab world, the Russian Government has stuck with Assad for nearly 2 years now. What makes us think President Putin is about to change course now, when Assad is still a dominant power on the ground?

The Syrian opposition needs our help to change the balance of power on the ground. I have had the honor of meeting one of the key leaders of the Syrian opposition led by a man named Sheikh al-Khatib, the President of the Syrian National Coalition. Sheikh al-Khatib and the national coalition are doing everything the international community asks of them. They have worked to bring together credible moderate members of the Syrian opposition. They are building institutions, both civilian and military.

While the United States and our partners deserve credit in helping and pushing them to do so, when the opposition coalition asks responsible nations for support--when they ask us to help them in coordinating the distribution of aid, governing the liberated areas, and ultimately forming a transitional government--when they have asked us for this assistance, what have we done for them? Next to nothing.

Sheikh al-Khatib and the other moderate leaders of the Syrian opposition are struggling desperately to be relevant to their fellow citizens who are fighting and dying every day inside the country. I believe most Syrians do not support al-Qaida. But many of us in the West are still mired in our own internal debates about whether to provide nonlethal assistance or whether to continue to provide assistance through international NGOs--many of which, I would add, still function with the permission of the Assad regime and deliver most of their aid in Damascus--the fight in Syria is being won by extremists.

Al-Qaida fighters are showing up in greater numbers in the liberated areas of Syria with capable fighters and food and medicine and other aid. Is it any wonder, then, that extremists are gaining ground in Syria?

It is this simple: What is left of the moderate Syrian opposition is in a race against time to survive the radicalization of this conflict and, right now, the world is failing them. The longer we fail them, the worse the outcome will be for us all.

The time to act is long overdue, but it is not too late. I know many wish to avoid this reality by telling themselves and others there is nothing we can do in Syria, that our only options are to let the Syrians fight it out alone to the bitter end or to launch a massive and costly military intervention. But the truth is there are many options that we have the capability to undertake that would save lives and protect our important strategic interests in Syria.

First, the fact that the opposition in Syria is doing better militarily thanks to external support seems to validate what many of us have been arguing for months; that opposition forces have enough organization to be supportable and that our support can help them to further improve their organization and command and control. This is an argument for doing more, not less, to aid the rebel fighters in Syria, including providing responsible members of the armed opposition who share our goals and our values with the arms they need to succeed.

In a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, I asked Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey whether they agreed with a proposal reportedly developed by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former CIA Director David Petraeus last summer to have the United States arm and train members of the Syrian opposition. I was very pleased to hear both Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey state that they supported this proposal which, unfortunately, was refused by the White House. What this means is that the President overruled the senior leaders of his own national security team who were in unanimous agreement that America needs to take greater action to change the military balance of power in Syria.

Beyond providing arms to the opposition, we have other capabilities at our disposal that could make a decisive difference on the ground and save lives. I will give just two examples. NATO has deployed PATRIOT missile batteries in Turkey that are capable of shooting down Syrian aircraft as far south as Aleppo. We could establish a limited no-fly zone using these systems and, believe me, after the first few Syrian aircraft are shot down, I doubt Assad's pilots will be lining up to fly missions anymore. Another option would be to destroy Assad's aircraft on their runways with cruise missiles and other standoff weapons. Either way, we can take Syrian air power off the table.

Once defended, these safe havens could become platforms for increased deliveries of food and medicine, communications equipment, doctors to treat the wounded, and other nonlethal assistance. They could also serve as staging areas for armed opposition groups to receive battlefield intelligence, body armor, and weapons--from small arms and ammunition to antitank rockets--and to train and organize themselves more effectively, perhaps with foreign assistance. The goal would be to expand the reach of these safe havens across more of the country.

Would these actions immediately end the conflict? No. But would they save lives in Syria? Would they give the moderate opposition a better chance to succeed and marginalize the radicals? Would they help the West regain the trust of the Syrian people? Do we have the capability to make a difference? To me, the answer to all these questions is clearly yes. Yes, there are risks to greater involvement in Syria. The opposition is still struggling to get organized. Al-Qaida and the other extremists are working to hijack the revolution, and there are already reports of reprisal killings of Alawites. These risks are real and serious, but the risks of continuing to do nothing are worse.

What is needed is American leadership. What is needed is a reminder of the words Abraham Lincoln spoke in his annual message to Congress in 1862: ``We--even we here--hold the power, and bear the responsibility.''

As we mark 2 years of this horrific conflict, if there were ever a case that should remind us of this responsibility, it is that of Syria.

A few months ago, The Washington Post interviewed a young Bosnian man who had survived the genocide of Srebrenica in 1995. This is how he sees the ongoing slaughter in Syria:

It's bazaar how ``never again'' has come to mean ``again

and again,'' he said. It's obvious that we live in a world

where Srebrenicas are still possible. What's happening in

Syria today is almost identical to what happened in Bosnia

two decades ago.

He could not be more correct. The conflict in Syria today is nearly indistinguishable from that in Bosnia during the 1990s. As Leon Wieseltier wrote earlier this week in ``The New Republic''--I ask unanimous consent that the complete column by Leon Wieseltier be printed in the Record.

Again, as Leon Wieseltier wrote earlier this week in the New Republic:

I am finding crushing parallels: A President who is

satisfied to be a bystander, and ornaments his prevarications

with high moral pronouncements; an extenuation of American

passivity by appeals to insurmountable complexities and

obscurities on the ground, and to ethnic and religious

divisions too deep and too old to be modified by statecraft,

and to ominous warnings of anticipated consequences, as if

consequences are ever all anticipated; an arms embargo

against the people who require arms most, who are the victims

of state power; the use of rape and torture and murder

against civilians as open instruments of war; the universal

knowledge of crimes against humanity and the failure of that

knowledge to affect the policy-making will; the dailiness of

the atrocity, its unimpeded progress, the long duration of

our shame in doing nothing about it. The parallels are not

perfect, of course. Only 70,000 people have been killed in

Syria, so what's the rush?

We must ask ourselves: How many more innocent people must die before we take action?

Amidst these crushing parallels, there is one key difference. In Bosnia, President Clinton finally summoned the courage to lead the world to intervene and stop the killing. It is worth recalling his words upon ordering military action in 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.

Those were the words of a Democratic President who led America to do the right thing in stopping mass atrocities in Bosnia, and I remember working with my Republican colleague Senator Bob Dole to support President Clinton in that endeavor.

The question for another Democratic President today, and for all of us in a position of responsibility, is whether we will again answer the desperate pleas for rescue that are made uniquely to us as the United States of America, and whether we will use our great power, as we have done before at our best, not simply to advance our own interests but to serve a just cause that is greater than our interests alone.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, could I ask my friend a question while he is on that subject?

I say to my friend from Illinois that there is no further objection. The Senator from Oklahoma and I have reviewed the bill and yesterday we discussed its length and our obligations. I promise to my friend from Illinois that we will not rehash that discussion we had. We have no objection whatsoever to taking up amendments right now and moving forward with that. I hope that is perfectly clear to all Members. Very frankly, I am eager to move forward.

I will mention to my friend from Illinois that I appreciate the new responsibilities he has. I appreciate the responsibilities he has addressing, as he just said, the largest single part of our appropriations bill which is in the Defense authorization. During the intervening time we had requested, I came up with, for example, $65 million for Pacific coast salmon restorations for States, which includes Nevada. We are going to restore salmon restoration in the State of Nevada?

Also listed here is the Department of Defense to overpay contracts by an additional 5 percent--totaling $15 million--for Native Hawaiian- owned companies. I would be glad to include this long list for the Record.

There is a request for $993,000 in grants to dig private wells for private property owners; $10 million for USDA high-energy cost grant program to go to subsidize electricity bills in Alaska and Hawaii; $5.9 million for economic impact initiative grants. The list goes on and on.

I say to my friend from Illinois that we were trying to examine this legislation--the 587 pages or whatever it is--to find this sort of issue. It is our obligation to do so. We have found these things, and we are still finding additional elements.

I see my old friend, the distinguished majority leader, on the floor. We are ready to move forward with amendments. I was saying to my friend from Illinois that we found numerous additional provisions in this legislation that we think are important for debate and discussion. I won't go through all of them, but some of the items include $120 million for Guam; $5 million for the National Guard STARBASE Youth Program; $154 million for alternative energy resource. It goes on and on. In the meantime we have ships that cannot deport, planes that cannot fly, and men and women we cannot train and equip. Yet we have this kind of stuff on the appropriations bills.

I want to share with my colleagues that the Senator from Oklahoma and I finished examining this bill yesterday. We are prepared with amendments and moving forward with vigorous debate. If there was any misunderstanding about that, I apologize to the majority leader and my friend from Illinois.

Mr. President, if we could continue our dialogue.

Mr. President, I want to thank the majority leader before he leaves the floor. I look forward to amendments and debate. Again, I apologize to all my colleagues if we held up this legislation, but we did want time to examine this legislation as we had previously requested. I thank my colleagues and look forward to moving forward with amendments. The Senator from Oklahoma and I are prepared with amendments whenever they are in order.

I thank my friend from Illinois, and I appreciate the enormous responsibility he has in his new position.

Mr. President, could I briefly respond?

Mr. President, I say to my friend I had no assurance that what came from the House--the defense portion of this bill--was going to be ``preconferenced,'' and that it was going to be the final bill. So to expect for me to honestly examine the House-passed bill without knowing what the disposition of it would be on the Senate side is a little much. During the intervening time, the Senator from Oklahoma and I have found items in this bill that have nothing to do with the defense bill. For example, $65 million for Pacific coast salmon restoration for States including Nevada. I know there are rivers coursing through Nevada all the way to the Pacific Ocean, but the point is there is $993,000 in grants to dig private wells for private property owners.

We have a list of provisions which we were able to uncover which we find controversial and should be open for debate and discussion. But it is over, and we are moving forward.

I hope the Senators whose amendments have just been made and ordered will come to the floor so we can debate and vote.

I thank the Senator from Illinois, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 33.

I yield to the chairwoman.

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

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 33.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be disposed with.

I come to the floor to talk about amendment No. 33, which would strike sections 8104 and 8039 of the bill. It is a pair of Guam earmarks that directly contravene the explicit directions provided by the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives in the conference report on the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.

Congress has not yet received a sufficient cost analysis of the proposed movement of the troops from Okinawa to Guam. Because of that, and the whole operation of these troops from Okinawa to Guam has still not been decided, the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate explicitly prohibited this type of premature investment in civilian infrastructure.

At a time when the Department of Defense is facing the impact of sequester, on top of the $487 billion in cuts directed by the President, it is appalling and disgraceful that the authorizing language would be directly circumvented by the authorizers.

I want to read the language for my colleagues' benefit. After hours and hours of hearings, of amendments, of markup, of 3 weeks on the floor of the Senate, the product stated:

Restriction on development of public infrastructure. If the

Secretary of Defense determines that any grant, cooperative

agreement, transfer of funds to another Federal agency, or

supplement of funds available in fiscal year 2012 or fiscal

year 2013 under Federal programs administered by agencies

other than the Department of Defense will result in the

development (including repair, replacement, renovation,

conversion, improvement, expansion, acquisition, or

construction) of public infrastructure on Guam, the Secretary

of Defense may not carry out such grant, transfer,

cooperative agreement, or supplemental funding unless

specifically authorized by law.

So here is clear language of the National Defense Authorization Act directly contradicted by this continuing resolution. What in the world is the job of the authorizers if it is not to have the language adhered to? At a time when the Department of Defense is facing the impact of sequestration, on top of $487 billion in cuts already directed by the President, the appropriators decided that we would spend $140 million on Guam. It is absolutely unbelievable, I say to my colleagues.

Now, let me tell my colleagues about the effect of the sequester that has happened now. According to this line item in the appropriations bill, it will spend $140 million on a wastewater treatment plant on Guam and another project. So we are going to spend $140 million on that.

Meanwhile, I say to my colleagues, here is what has already happened, with the sequester to the Armed Forces. The Army: Cancels four brigade exercises at the National Training Center or Joint Readiness Training Center. The Army: Reduced base operations by 30 percent; cancels half the year of helicopters and ground vehicle depot maintenance; stops post-war repair of 1,300 vehicles and 17,000 weapons; reduces readiness of 80 percent of the Army's nondeploying brigades; stops tuition assistance for all Active and Reserve soldiers.

Navy: Cancels several submarine deployments; reduces flying hours on deployed carriers in the Middle East by 55 percent; steaming days by 22 percent; reduces Western Pacific deployed operations by 35 percent; nondeployed Pacific ships lose 40 percent of steaming days; reduces Middle East Atlantic MED ballistic missile defense patrols; shuts down all flying for four of nine carrier air wings 9 to 12 months to restore normal readiness at two to three times the cost; cuts all major naval exercises; defers emergent repairs; cancels Blue Angels shows in third and fourth quarter; USS Truman carrier deployment delayed indefinitely.

I might say that deployment was to the Middle East where the centrifuges are spinning. The USS Eisenhower career deployment extended indefinitely; USS Nimitz and USS Bush carrier strike groups will not be fully ready for scheduled fiscal year 2013 deployments.

Air Force: Likely prevent Air Force's ability to achieve the 2017 goal of being fully auditable; defer nonemergency facility requirements; reduce repairs by 50 percent over 420 projects at over 140 installations across the Air Force; affects runway repairs and critical sustainment projects; delays planned acquisition of satellites and aircraft, including JSF and AC-130J, which will increase the future cost of these systems; reduces flying hours for cargo, fighter and bomber aircraft; stops tuition assistance for all Active and Reserve airmen.

Marine Corps: I hope my colleagues will listen to this. The Commandant of the Marine Corps says:

By the end of this year, more than 50 percent of my combat

units will be below minimal acceptable levels of readiness

for deployment to combat.

I repeat. The Commandant of the Marine Corps says:

By the end of this year, more than 50 percent of my combat

units will be below minimal acceptable levels of readiness

for deployment to combat.

Unable to complete rebalancing of Marine Corps forces into the Asia Pacific region; will cause 55 percent of the U.S. Marine Corps forces to have unsatisfactory readiness ratings; 50 percent of the U.S. Marine Corps aviation squadrons will fall below ready-to-deploy status; U.S. Marine Corps will not be able to accomplish planned reset of equipment returning from overseas expeditionary forces; depot level maintenance will be reduced, delaying resettability by 18 months and reducing nondeployed forces; facilities sustainment will be funded at 71 percent of requirement, reducing effectiveness of home station training and quality of life.

These are the effects of sequestration. So what do they do? What do they do in the continuing resolution? They add $140 million for Guam for a wastewater treatment plant. Talk about divorced from reality. Talk about insensitivity to the men and women who are serving this country. I am already beginning to hear from them, I will tell you that.

There are a lot of bright young men and women who are serving this country, are serving it with courage and skill and are the best probably we have ever seen. I am hearing from their leaders. They are making decisions about whether to stay in the military. It is an All- Volunteer Force. I can tell you what a lot of them are deciding when they see something as ridiculous as this, and there are other outrageous and stupid things in this bill.

While all of the things are taking place in the Air Force, the Army, and the Marine Corps, we are now on this list--we have $5 million--they are adding money, adding money, adding millions. In fact, it comes up to billions--$5 million for the National Guard Youth Challenge Program, $5 million for the Department of Defense Star Base Youth Program, $154 million for an Army, Navy, and Air Force ``alternative energy resource initiative,'' $18 million for unspecified ``industrial preparedness,'' $16 million for Parkinson's disease research--there is a whole bunch in here for medical research. They are taking it out of defense. I am for research in all of these programs, whether it be Parkinson's or neurofibromatosis or HIV/AIDS research, but they are taking it out of defense.

They are adding $9 million for unspecified radar research, $20 million for university research initiatives, $7 million for a Civil Air Patrol Program increase, $45 million for Impact Aid. The list goes on and on and on.

While the Air Force is unable to fly, the Civil Air Patrol will get an additional $15 million. I am a great admirer of the Civil Air Patrol.

The fact is that what we are doing is we are cutting the flying hours and affecting the readiness of the men and women who are serving in the military

in this country. I repeat a statement of the Commandant of the Marine Corps: By the end of this year, ``more than 50 percent of my combat units will be below minimal acceptable levels of readiness for deployment to combat.'' What did these appropriators do? They put in $140 million for wastewater treatment on Guam, which is expressly prohibited by the National Defense Authorization Act.

I have been on this floor for many years fighting against what I believe is encroachment by appropriators on the authorizers' business. I have never, in 26 years as a member of the defense appropriations committee and the Armed Forces committee, seen anything quite as egregious as this.

I say to my colleagues, who are authorizers and not appropriators, if you let them get away with directly violating and contradicting the express language of the National Defense Authorization Act, you are next. You are next. This is unacceptable. I hope my colleagues will vote on the issue of whether we need to spend this money, particularly at this moment, with the condition of our military.

Many of our constituents say: Why is this being so hard hit? Why is the military being so hard hit?

They don't quite understand sequester--this thing the President said won't happen. This sequester affects 19 percent of what we call the discretionary spending. They exempted about two-thirds of all of the discretionary spending and then took 50 percent of what was left of 19 percent of the spending. This has a dramatically increased effect on what we need most; that is, our national security. It is shameful.

I hope my colleagues and friends know that this Guam provision would provide, which is expressly prohibited, $120 million for a public regional health laboratory and civilian wastewater improvements. The Department of Defense wants to move marines to Guam but does not know how much military infrastructure will be needed--military infrastructure will be needed to support the move--what the implications will be to operational responsiveness in the Pacific theater or how much any of it will cost.

Over the last 2 years, the Armed Services Committee received many hours of testimony, briefings, and meetings on the troop realignment in the Pacific and directed the Center for Strategic and International Studies to conduct an independent assessment on U.S. force strategy in the region. The assessment--delivered in August 2012--recommended a better alignment of engagement strategies between the U.S. Pacific Command and the Department of Defense in order to improve our capabilities in the region and respond to a range of contingencies. The CSIS was clear in the appraisal that the Department of Defense had not adequately articulated the strategy behind its future posture planning nor aligned the strategy with resources in a way that reflects current budget realities.

After more testimony, briefings, and meetings, the Armed Services Committee acted and, through the vehicle of the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, prohibited the use of funds for any military realignment to Guam until the Department of Defense and the U.S. Pacific Command provided a detailed set of reports. These reports will address the plan for ensuring that any proposed force realignments in the Pacific region to include moving U.S. marines from Japan to Guam and Hawaii are supported by resources that will allow our forces to meet operational requirements. Admiral Locklear, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, told me yesterday that these reports would be ready this summer.

The Department of Defense has planning left to do. While Congress may someday authorize some number of marines to be realigned to Guam, it will only be after we have a clear understanding of the clear implications and costs. In this context, the Appropriations Committee would fund unrequested civilian infrastructure--not military infrastructure, civilian infrastructure--far greater in scope than would be required in the event the most extreme estimates of troop realignment occurred. There is absolutely no justification for it.

This is why the Armed Services Committee expressly prohibited such funding, because we don't know how much military or civilian infrastructure we may need, if any. Has one single marine, sailor, or airman been assigned to Guam as part of the intended buildup that would justify using DOD money to rebuild Guam civilian wastewater facilities or build a new civilian health laboratory? The answer is obviously no. The support payoff to Guam to solve an already existing problem has nothing to do with any future military realignment to Guam. This is no better than last year's set of earmarks for a cultural artifacts repository.

It should be very clear by now that these expenditures pushed through in direct contravention of the bipartisan, bicameral decisions of the Armed Services Committee are a shameful waste of taxpayers' money. In my view, this is a clear example of political abuse of the appropriations process.

I could go on for a long time. In fact, instead of doing a continuing resolution, we should be doing everything we can to avoid the sequester, which has such a disastrous effect on our military.

I am sure my colleagues are aware that in Tehran the centrifuges are spinning. North Korea just had another nuclear test. They threatened to cancel the cease-fire of 1953. They are making very aggressive noises toward South Korea and, I believe, our 30,000 men and women who are stationed there. Tension between Japan and China is very high. For my colleagues' information, I am sure they know that the Chinese have increased, doubled, and redoubled their spending on their military. The Middle East is in a state of turmoil, which could lead to an international crisis almost at any moment. Seventy thousand Syrians have been slaughtered by Bashar al-Asad. There are over 1 million refugees, as that conflict shows all possibility of spreading to Lebanon and to Jordan.

What are we doing? We are imposing Draconian cuts on the U.S. military, which caused the Commandant of the Marine Corps to say 50 percent of all his combat units will be below minimal acceptable levels of readiness for deployment to combat.

I have been around this body and this Nation for a long time. I have seen this movie before. Everybody talks about war weariness. Everybody talks about how weary we are of Iraq and Afghanistan, and indeed we are. We were war weary after Vietnam. We cut the military, cut the military, and we cut the military as we are doing today. The Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army in the late 1970s came before the Armed Services Committee and said we have a hollow army. Do you know what we are doing right now with sequestration? We are hollowing out our military. To add insult to injury, we are putting on a long list of wasteful, unnecessary programs, many of which have nothing to do with defending this Nation. Some are outright pork-barrel spending.

I hope my colleagues, particularly those on authorizing committees, will understand that if the appropriators are able to directly contradict language in authorizations that are passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States, then you become irrelevant to the process. I don't think the 80-so of us who are not members of the Appropriations Committee should be subjected to irrelevance.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I guess the time here is short. Sometimes when you can't argue the merits of an issue you just make up something. Senator Durbin claims this amendment would cut funding for the Fisher House, Red Cross, and the USO. If you read the bill, the Fisher House is covered in the CR in section 8070. The Red Cross and USO are covered in section 8078. This amendment strikes section 8039, which pertains to the Office of Economic Adjustment fund, the OEA fund. It has nothing to do with Fisher Houses, the Red Cross, mothers of America, apple pie, or the flag--nothing to do with those except that it strikes legislation which is expressly prohibited in the Defense authorization bill. It strikes language which is directly prohibited by the National Defense Authorization Act.

If the Senator wants to claim that Fisher House, Red Cross, USO, small animals, children, the United Way, whatever else he wants to, they are covered in other parts of the bill. I suggest to the Senator from Illinois reread the bill which says--section 8070 talks about Fisher Houses; section 8078 talks about the Red Cross and the USO. Our amendment strikes 8039, which is the Office of Economic Adjustment, that funding.

I thank the Senator for recognizing that. It is already part of the record. It is very clear this has nothing to do with the Fisher House.

Mr. President, along with the Senator from Oklahoma, I intend to object. I think the Senator made the case. I will remind my colleagues that 1 week ago Senator Coburn and I sent a letter to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell with copies to Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby.

We stated in one sentence:

We write to inform you of our intention to object to

entering into a time agreement before consideration of a

continuing resolution until we have had at least 72 hours to

review its contents.

That is what we wrote. That is what we asked for.

I will remind my colleagues again, it is a 587-page bill of over $1 trillion that we got at 9 p.m. last night. Is there anyone who has had time to read this entire bill that is 587 pages long? We are talking about $1 trillion, and we are holding up the Senate? We have had since 9 p.m. last night until 3:30 p.m. this afternoon to examine a 587-page bill of over $1 trillion.

What we have already found--and we have not finished, but we hope to be finished with examining this legislation within a few hours--is the most egregious pork-barrel spending during a time of sequestration. I find it mind-boggling. We spent 3 weeks in December on the floor of this Senate doing the fiscal year 2013 Defense authorization bill. There are provisions in this CR that were directly prohibited in the Defense authorization bill.

I respect the knowledge of the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Maryland on defense issues, but we spent 3 weeks and hundreds of hours in hearings including amendments and markup. For example, we said there would be no money for Guam until we have a coherent strategy laid out by the administration as to how we were going to implement the base realignment. The fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act prohibited expending that money.

What have they crammed into this 587-page bill? There is $120 million for a public regional health laboratory and civilian wastewater improvements in Guam. Why? I ask my friend from Alabama: Why does this directly contradict the authorization bill which was just passed that said no money would be given to Guam for these purposes until such time as we had developed the strategy for the base realignment in Guam? Is it because the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Maryland know something more than the Defense authorization bill authorizers did? We had debate, discussion, and authorization of this, and we specifically prohibited it.

So here we are. We have not been able to deploy an aircraft carrier because of sequestration. We have had to cut down on flying hours. We have had to reduce maintenance. We have had to make all kinds of tough decisions as to the men and women who are serving, not to mention the equipment, operations, and maintenance.

What have we already found out in this bill? I want to assure my colleagues I am not making this up. There is an additional $5 million for the National Guard Youth Challenge program. I think the National Guard Youth Challenge Program is a pretty worthwhile project, but is it worthwhile when we are having to keep a carrier from deployment? There is $5 million for the National Guard STARBASE Youth Program; another $154 million for the Army, Navy, and Air Force ``alternative energy research initiatives.'' This type of research has developed such shining examples as the Department of Navy's purchase of 450,000 gallons of alternative fuel for $12 million, which is over $26 per gallon.

There is $18 million for unspecified ``industrial preparedness,'' $16 million for Parkinson's disease research. That part is out of Defense, my friends. That is not out of Health and Human Services; it is out of Defense. There is $16 million for neurofibromatosis research, $16 million for HIV-AIDS research, which is a worthy cause, but it is taken out of Defense. There is $9 million for unspecified radar research, $567 million for unrequested medical research, $20 million for university research initiatives, and $7 million for the Civil Air Patrol program increase.

The list goes on and on, and we have not finished. How in the world do we have a provision ``for an incentive program that directs the Department of Defense to overpay on contracts by an additional 5 percent if the contractor is a Native Hawaiian-owned company,'' how in the world is this justified during this time of sequestration?

I note the presence of our leader on the floor, and I want to assure the leader, with all due respect, that this is a 587-page bill of over $1 trillion. We got it at 9 p.m. last night. I hope that in a few hours we will be able to finish examining this bill. What we have found so far is so egregious it is hard to imagine that anybody--in light of the sequestration and the damage it does to the lives of the men and women who are serving the military--could have added these kinds of provisions and, frankly, is beyond anything I think I have ever seen in the years I have served in the Senate.

I yield to the distinguished majority leader, but before I do, I object.

I ask through the Chair if my friend would yield for a question.

First of all, I appreciate very much the majority leader's responsibility to make sure we take up and pass legislation. There are many times when I have to say that the majority leader has been frustrated by some events and individuals which arouses my sympathy for the responsibility he has and his inability to carry out his duties.

I point out to my friend from Nevada that we just got this bill last night, so to rely on the fact that a House bill should be our guide when we know there were many provisions added--at least some provisions that were added that we already found in the Senate version of the bill--I would hope he would understand we need a little more time to try to get through the entire bill, which I hope will be sooner rather than later. Once that is done, then we can--as the majority leader said--be open for amendments.

I hope the majority leader understands our point of view, that this is bill over $1 trillion with 587 pages. For us to take sort of an act of faith that this is the bill that came from the House is obviously not the case.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Illinois.

The point of the Senator from Illinois is very well made, but unless we know the entirety of the bill, we don't know what our priorities are as far as amendments are concerned. I am sure the Senator knows that even though amendments are going to be allowed, there is going to be a limited number of amendments. We know how things work around this place come Thursday afternoon.

All we are asking is to give us a little more time. It was 9 o'clock last night when we received the final version of the bill.

I would say to my friend from Illinois, unless we know what is in the bill in its entirety, it is hard for us to know what the priority amendments we intend on proposing are. I think we are nearly through the examination of the bill. I do not wish to impede the progress of the Senate on this legislation. I know how important it is.

I also hope my friend will understand that we asked a week ago to have 72 hours, which is the normal Senate procedure, to examine the bill before we consider it. I understand the exigencies of the moment-- all the back and forth between both sides of the Capitol--but I don't believe, for a $1 trillion bill, 587 pages, it is too much to ask for about 12 hours, or 14 hours, 15 hours--we have our staff working full time, and I wish to assure the Senator we will have it done soon.

Look, my dear friend, every Senator has their responsibilities in this body. I have a responsibility particularly where defense is concerned. We spent 3 weeks on this legislation, including hundreds of amendments, hours and hours of debate, markup in the committee of hours and hours, hundreds of hours of hearings by the leaders of our military and the administration. I haven't finished examining the defense part of this bill.

Now, why am I so worried about the provisions of this bill? Because there are provisions in this bill that directly contradict the Defense authorization we spent weeks on. We prohibited money for Guam, OK? We prohibited it. Now there is $120 million in the bill for it. So that makes me curious as to what else is in this bill.

So I think for me to go back and tell my constituents in Arizona, who are heavily dependent on our national defense and our bases, to say, Yes, I went ahead without even reading the whole bill, without even my staff going through the entire bill; we were in such a hurry with our over $1 trillion legislation that they didn't want me to hold up the Senate so people could propose amendments--that is not my duty to the citizens of Arizona.

So I say with respect to my friend, I respect the rights of all other Senators. I hope the rights of the Senator from Oklahoma and my rights would be respected and that includes reading a piece of legislation that is 587 pages long.

Well, again, I thank my friend from Illinois and I thank him for his point of view. I understand it. I understand the frustration of our two leaders on the Appropriations Committee and their desire to get this done. I understand the time clock is running out. We are talking about a very short period of time. But I have to repeat to the Senator from Illinois one more time: I am not going to go back to my State and say, By the way, I started the amendment process and debating on a bill that I hadn't read. I don't do that, and I hope the Senator from Illinois respects it. I hope in a very short period of time we can agree to proceed and have vigorous debate and amendments.

I also have to say this is remarkable. Here we are, I say to my friend from Illinois, in a period of sequestration, and there is a provision in here for $15 million for an incentive program that directs the Department of Defense to overpay contracts by an additional 5 percent if the contractor is a Native Hawaiian-owned company. That boggles the mind. It is unbelievable. While we are keeping ships tied up at the pier because we can't deploy them, we are now going to tell Native Hawaiian companies they are going to be overpaid by an additional 5 percent if they are based in Hawaii. What is that all about? That is why the Senator from Oklahoma and I have to read the bill. I thank my colleagues.

Yes, ma'am.

I would say to the Senator, the distinguished chairperson, I respect that and I would never impugn her motives. I said I thought I understood the time constraints the Senator from Maryland is under, given the House and the Senate and all that. I certainly did not intend to believe that there was anything----

I think in a very short time. I have to coordinate with the Senator from Oklahoma, but I think within a couple of hours.

Could I say to the distinguished chairwoman, I will go back to my office right now, get together with Senator Coburn, and see if we can't come up with a definite time, and I assure the Senator from Maryland it will be a short period of time.

Mr. President, I will try to carry out my mission as assigned by the distinguished chairperson. I thank her for her leadership and her excellent work. I thank both leaders.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as if in morning business and ask to be joined in colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Graham.

Mr. President, I wish to quote from this morning's editorial in the Wall Street Journal entitled ``Rand Paul's Drone Rant.'' I wish to read for the edification of my colleagues the editorial which was in the Wall Street Journal, a credible media outlet, this morning.

The Wall Street Journal reads:

Give Rand Paul credit for theatrical timing. As the storm

descended on Washington, the Kentucky Republican's old-

fashioned filibuster Wednesday filled the attention void on

Twitter and cable TV. If only his reasoning matched the

showmanship.

Shortly before noon, Senator Paul began talking filibuster

against John Brennan's nomination to lead the CIA. The tactic

is rarely used in the Senate and was last seen in 2010. But

Senator Paul said an ``alarm'' had to be sounded about the

threat to Americans from their own government. He promised to

speak ``until the President says, no, he will not kill you at

a cafe.'' He meant by a military drone. He's apparently

serious, though his argument isn't.

Senator Paul had written the White House to inquire about

the possibility of a drone strike against a U.S. citizen on

American soil. Attorney General Eric Holder replied that the

U.S. hasn't and ``has no intention'' to bomb any specific

territory. Drones are limited to the remotest area of

conflict zones like Pakistan and Yemen. But as a hypothetical

constitutional matter, Mr. Holder acknowledged the President

can authorize the use of lethal military force within U.S.

territory.

This shocked Senator Paul, who invoked the Constitution and

Miranda rights. Under current U.S. policy, Mr. Paul mused on

the floor, Jane Fonda could have been legally killed by a

Hellfire missile during her tour of Communist Hanoi in 1972.

A group of noncombatants sitting in public view in Houston

may soon be pulverized, he declared.

Calm down, Senator. Mr. Holder is right, even if he doesn't

explain the law very well. The U.S. Government cannot

randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere

else.

I repeat that: The U.S. Government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else.

What it can do under the laws of war is target an ``enemy

combatant'' anywhere at any time, including on U.S. soil.

This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant.

The President can designate such a combatant if he belongs to

an entity--a government, say, or a terrorist network like al-

Qaida--that has taken up arms against the United States as

part of an internationally recognized armed conflict. That

does not include Hanoi Jane.

Such a conflict exists between the U.S. and al-Qaida, so

Mr. Holder is right that the U.S. could have targeted (say)

U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki had he continued to live in

Virginia. The U.S. killed him in Yemen before he could kill

more Americans. But under the law al-Awlaki was no different

than the Nazis who came ashore on Long Island in World War

II, were captured and executed.

The country needs more Senators who care about liberty, but

if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more

than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable

libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know

what he's talking about.

I watched some of that ``debate'' yesterday. I saw colleagues of mine who know better come to the floor and voice this same concern, which is totally unfounded. I must say that the use of Jane Fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me, and I must say she is not my favorite American, but I also believe that as odious as it was, Ms. Fonda acted within her constitutional rights. To somehow say that someone who disagrees with American policy, and even may demonstrate against it, is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply false. It is simply false.

I believe we need to visit this whole issue of the use of drones--who uses them, whether the CIA should become their own Air Force, what the oversight is. The legal and political foundation for this kind of conflict needs to be reviewed.

Relating to this, let me quote from an article by Jack Goldsmith that was in the Washington Post on February 5, 2013, entitled: ``U.S. needs a rulebook for secret warfare.''

The legal foundation rests mostly on laws designed for

another task that government lawyers have interpreted,

without public scrutiny, to meet new challenges. Outside the

surveillance context, Congress as a body has not debated or

approved the means or ends of secret warfare. Because secret

surveillance and targeted strikes, rather than U.S. military

detention, are central to the new warfare, there are no

viable plaintiffs to test the government's authorities in

court. In short, executive-branch decisions since 2001 have

led the Nation to a new type of war against new enemies on a

new battlefield without enough focused national debate,

deliberate congressional approval or real judicial review.

What the government needs is a new framework statute--akin

to the National Security Act of 1947, or the series of

intelligence reforms made after Watergate, or even the 2001

authorization of force--to define the scope of the new war,

the authorities and limitations on presidential power, and

forms of review of the President's actions.

I don't think we should have any doubt there are people both within the United States of America and outside it who are members of terrorist organizations and who want to repeat 9/11. All of us thank God there has not been a repeat of 9/11. Most of the experts I know will say there has been a certain element of luck--a small element but still an element of luck, such as the Underwear Bomber and others--that has prevented a devastating attack on the United States. But to somehow allege or infer the President of the United States is going to kill somebody such as Jane Fonda or someone who disagrees with the government's policies is a stretch of imagination which is, frankly, ridiculous--ridiculous.

I don't disagree that we need more debate, more discussion, and, frankly, probably more legislation to make sure America does protect the rights of all our citizens and to make sure, at the same time, if someone is an enemy combatant, that enemy combatant has nowhere to hide--not in a cafe, not anywhere. But to say that somehow, even though we try to take that person, that we would hit them in a cafe with a Hellfire missile--well, first of all, there are no drones with Hellfire missiles anywhere near. They are over in places such as Yemen and Afghanistan and other places around the world.

We have done a disservice to a lot of Americans by making them believe that somehow they are in danger from their government. They are not. But we are in danger--we are in danger--from a dedicated, longstanding, easily replaceable leadership enemy that is hellbent on our destruction, and this leads us to having to do things perhaps we haven't had to do in other more conventional wars.

I don't believe Anwar al-Awlaki should have been protected anywhere in the world, but that doesn't mean they are going to take him out with a Hellfire missile. It means we are going to use our best intelligence to apprehend and debrief these people so we can gain the necessary intelligence to bring them all to justice.

All I can say is, I don't think what happened yesterday is helpful for the American people. We need a discussion, as I said, about exactly how we are going to address this new form of almost interminable warfare, which is very different from anything we have ever faced in the past, but somehow to allege the United States of America, our government, would drop a drone Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda, that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about U.S. policy to the realm of the ridiculous.

I would also like to add an additional note. About 42 percent, as I am told, of the Members of this Senate are here for 6 years or less. Every time a majority party is in power, they become frustrated with the exercise of the minority and their rights in the Senate. Back some years ago, when the Republicans--this side of aisle--were in the majority, we were going to eliminate the ability to call for 60 votes on the confirmation of judges. We were able to put that aside. There was another effort at the beginning of this Senate to do away with 60 votes and go back down to 51, which, in my view, would have destroyed the Senate.

A lot of us worked very hard--a group of us--for a long time to come up with some compromises that would allow the Senate to move more rapidly and efficiently but at the same time preserving the 60-vote majority requirement on some pieces of legislation. What we saw yesterday is going to give ammunition to those critics who say the rules of the Senate are being abused. I hope my colleagues on this side of the aisle will take that into consideration.

I note the presence of the Senator from South Carolina. The Senator from South Carolina, as many of our colleagues know, is a lawyer. He has been a military lawyer in the Air Force Reserve for over 20 years. If there is anyone in the Senate who knows about this issue from a legal and technical standpoint, it is my colleague from South Carolina.

I ask my colleague from South Carolina, is there any way the President of the United States could just randomly attack someone, with a drone or a Hellfire missile, without that person being designated an enemy combatant?

And I don't think, as much as I hate to say it, that applies to Jane Fonda.

May I ask my colleague a question especially on that subject.

A lot of our friends--particularly Senator Paul and others--pride themselves on their strict adherence to the Constitution and the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Isn't it true that as a result of an attack on Long Island during World War II, an American citizen--among others--was captured and hung on American soil, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that execution because that individual was an enemy combatant? Does that establish without a doubt the fact that these are enemy combatants, and no matter where they are, they are subject to the same form of justice as the terrorists in World War II were?

And should not be construed as an authority to kill somebody in a cafe.

And may I say to my friend that there are scenarios where there could be an extreme situation where there is a direct threat. We could draw many scenarios--a bomb-laden, explosive-laden vehicle headed for a nuclear powerplant--where the President of the United States may have to use any asset the President has in order to prevent an impending catastrophic attack on the United States of America. And that is within the realm of possible scenarios.

So to somehow say that we would kill people in cafes and therefore drone strikes should never be used under any circumstances I believe is a distortion of the realities of the threats we face.

As we are speaking, there are people who are plotting to attack the United States of America. We know that. At the same time, we are ready, as the Senator said, to discuss, debate, and frame legislation that brings us up to date with the new kind of war we are in. But to somehow have a debate and a discussion that we would have killed Jane Fonda does, in my view, a disservice to the debate and discussion that needs to be conducted.

If I may say real quickly, an imminent threat.

MR. DURBIN. Yes.

We may have to do a little better job of defining that, but to say imminent threat would then translate into killing somebody in a cafe is not a mature debate or discussion.

Madam President, I think that concludes our discussion. I would agree with the Senator from Illinois and my colleague from South Carolina that we need hearings. We need to discuss how we conduct this--the United States, in what appears to be, for all intents and purposes, an interminable conflict that we are in and we have to adjust to it. But that conversation should not be talking about drones killing Jane Fonda and people in cafes. It should be all about what authority and what checks and balances should exist in order to make it a most effective ability to combat an enemy that we know will be with us for a long time.

Madam President, I thank my colleague and also thank the Senator from Illinois for his engagement. In closing, I would like to congratulate my friend from South Carolina for his best behavior last night at dinner. He was on his best manners and everyone was very impressed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I regret that I must oppose cloture on the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. During the 109th Congress, I joined 13 of my Senate colleagues to negotiate a compromise as part of an effort to avoid use of the so-called nuclear option to break an organized filibuster on judicial nominations. A tenet of that agreement was the right of ``signatories to exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith.'' Further, the agreement went on to state that ``nominees should be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.''

In keeping with the 2005 agreement, I have decided to oppose the President's nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Ms. Halligan's demonstrated record of judicial activism on issues ranging from holding firearm manufacturers liable for the crimes of third parties, to arguments regarding National Labor Relations Board authorities, to her record on the detention of enemy combatants, indicates to me that her activist record would only continue if granted the privilege of sitting on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

It is for these reasons and others that I believe Ms. Halligan meets the ``extraordinary circumstances'' requirement expressed in the agreement. An important constitutional responsibility of the executive branch and the U.S. Senate is to ensure that the Federal bench is able to handle its caseload expeditiously. In my view, we should only oppose cloture in extraordinary circumstances. Unfortunately, I believe this nominee meets that requirement, and my vote to oppose is consistent with the agreement made in 2005.

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

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. McCAIN pertaining to the submission of S. Con. Res. 5 are located in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about a resolution I have submitted which calls on the President of the United States to posthumously pardon the world's first African-American heavyweight champion, John Arthur ``Jack'' Johnson. I am proud to be joined in this effort by my friend, the majority leader, Harry Reid and the Senator from Massachusetts Mr. Cowan.

I would point out that the majority leader of the Senate was once an excellent fighter himself, of great skill and agility, which he continues to display here as majority leader of the Senate. I would also like to thank him for his commitment to the sport of boxing and for joining me again in attempting to do justice for a man who was done a great injustice.

For my colleagues who may not be familiar with the story of the late Jack Johnson, he is considered by many to be the most dominant athlete in boxing history. Arthur John Johnson was born in Galveston, TX, in 1878 to parents who were former slaves. At an early age, he realized his talent for the sweet science. In order to make a living, Johnson traveled across the country fighting anyone willing to face him. But he was denied repeatedly, on purely racial grounds, a chance to fight for the world heavyweight title. For too long African-American fighters were not seen as legitimate contenders for the championship. Fortunately, after years of perseverance, Johnson was finally granted an opportunity in 1908 to fight the then-reigning title holder, Tommy Burns, in Sydney, Australia. Even though the fight lasted 14 rounds, Johnson handily defeated Burns to become the first African-American heavyweight champion of the world.

Jack Johnson's success in the ring, and sometimes indulgent lifestyle outside of it, fostered resentment among many and raised concerns that his continued dominance in the ring would somehow disrupt what was then perceived by many as a racial order. So as history tells us, a search for a Caucasian boxer who could defeat Johnson began. This recruitment effort became known as the search for the ``Great White Hope.'' The so- called hope arrived in the person of former champion Jim Jeffries, who returned from retirement to fight Johnson in 1910. Johnson went on to defeat Jeffries, and as a shameful consequence race riots broke out in several cities as many sought to avenge Jeffries' defeat.

Following the loss of the ``Great White Hope,'' the Federal Government launched an investigation into the legality of Johnson's relationships with Caucasian women. At that time the Mann Act, which was enacted in 1910, outlawed the transport of Caucasian women across State lines for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery or for ``any other immoral purpose.'' Using the ``any other immoral purpose'' clause as a pretext, Federal law enforcement officials set out to get Jack Johnson.

On October 18, 1912, the Federal Government got their man. On that day, Johnson was arrested for transporting his Caucasian girlfriend across State lines in violation of the Mann Act. However, the charges were subsequently dropped when the Caucasian female, whose mother had originally tipped off Federal officials, refused to cooperate with authorities. She later married Jack Johnson.

Not to be outdone, the Federal authorities remained persistent in their determination to persecute Johnson, persuading a former scorned Caucasian

girlfriend of Johnson's to testify that he had transported her across State lines. Her testimony resulted in Johnson's conviction in 1913, when he was sentenced to 1 year and a day in Federal prison. During Johnson's appeal, one prosecutor admitted:

Mr. Johnson was perhaps persecuted as an individual, but

that it was his misfortune to be the foremost example of the

evil in permitting the intermarriage of whites and blacks.

After the trial, Johnson fled the country to Canada and then traveled to various European and South American countries before losing his heavyweight champion title in Cuba in 1915. Ultimately overcome by homesickness, Jack Johnson returned to the United States in 1920, surrendering to Federal authorities, and served nearly 1 year in Federal prison. Despite this obvious and clear injustice, Johnson refused to turn his back on the country that betrayed him. Mr. Johnson died in an automobile accident in 1946 at the age of 68 years.

Today, as we look back on our Nation's history, the Jack Johnson case is a shameful stain apparent to all. Rectifying this injustice is long overdue. The resolution we submit today calls on the President to pardon Mr. Johnson posthumously. It recognizes the unjustness of what transpired and sheds light on the achievements of an athlete who was forced into the shadows of bigotry and prejudice. Jack Johnson may have been a flawed individual, and he was certainly controversial during his day, but he was also a historic American figure whose life and accomplishments played an instrumental role in our Nation's development and progress toward true equality under the law.

There is no doubt Jack Johnson deserved much better than a racially motivated conviction which denied him his liberty and served to diminish his athletic, cultural, and historic significance. As a body we should adopt this resolution and continue to fight for a posthumous pardon for Jack Johnson to afford future generations the opportunity to grasp fully what Jack Johnson accomplished--against great odds--and appreciate his contributions to society unencumbered by the taint of an unjust, racially motivated criminal conviction.

Sadly, there is no way for us to possibly right the wrong that was done to Jack Johnson during his lifetime, but what we can do is take this small step toward acknowledging his mistreatment and remove the cloud that casts a shadow on his legacy. After all, that cloud over Jack Johnson's legacy says more about our past wrongs than it could honestly ever say about Johnson's own. As such, I urge my colleagues to support and swiftly adopt the resolution which requests the President of the United States grant Jack Johnson a posthumous pardon.

Madam President, today I honor an exceptional public servant and patriot. After a lifetime of service to our Nation, Richard D. ``Rick'' DeBobes is retiring from his position as staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee, effective February 28, 2013. On this occasion, it is fitting to recognize Rick's 50 years of uniformed and civilian service to our Nation.

Rick began his career as a naval officer, serving 26 exemplary years in jobs that included directing the International Negotiations Branch of the Navy's Judge Advocate General, commanding the Naval Legal Service Office, and finally serving as the legal adviser and legislative assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where he helped craft policies that have shaped our modern joint military force. Such a career, in and of itself, illustrates a commitment to causes greater than self-interest.

Rick's devotion to service and excellence continued long after he left active duty. Upon his retirement from the Navy, he joined the Senate Armed Services Committee as counsel, advising committee members on issues relating to national security strategy, defense policy, foreign affairs, and Department of Defense organization and management. Rick's authoritative analysis and counsel to members distilled complex issues and often served as a basis for common understanding and problem solving. Few were surprised then, when in 2003 he was asked by Senator Carl Levin to be the committee's staff director. Ten years on, the wisdom of that selection is evident. Rick's steady management of the committee, amidst strong personalities and throughout the occasionally animated policy debates, has yielded the admiration of his professional colleagues in Congress and the Department of Defense, and a long record of legislative success. Thoughtful leaders throughout government will feel his absence.

I join many past and present members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in my gratitude to Rick DeBobes for his outstanding leadership in uniform and in Congress, and his unceasing support for members of the Armed Forces. I wish him and his wife Margaret ``fair winds and following seas.''