Floor Statements

Mr. President, this was unanimously approved by the committee. There is a provision in there that would simply require the Department to plan to reduce funding for civilian and contractor personnel by approximately 5 percent, which would be less reduction than what is contemplated from the military side.

Right now, the President's budget, not counting sequester, would reduce military personnel by 123,900 men and women serving in the military or 5.5 percent over 5 years.

Since 2001, the civilian personnel in the Department of Defense has increased by 100,000, a 16 percent increase and a 37 percent increase in civilian pay costs.

The Department of Defense continues to be top heavy with headquarters. The Office of the Secretary will grow by 25 percent from 2001 to 2017.

Look, we all know that the Department of Defense is being downsized, so there has to be, obviously, a commensurate reduction in civilians, which is actually less than what is actually contemplated in the military.

This was unanimously reported, and I have had conversations with the Secretary of Defense, who agrees that we need to reduce the civilian personnel as well as the uniformed personnel.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Regular order here.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Maryland be given an additional 3 minutes, if he so desires.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Menendez and Senator Kirk for this very important action of tightening sanctions on Iran.

The centrifuges are still spinning in Tehran, and we have enacted strong sanctions. They have had some effect, but we have not had sufficient effect.

I thank Senator Menendez and Senator Kirk for this language in this amendment. I will not go through a list of all the actions that will be taken against Iran, but the screws need to be tightened. This is an important act, and it can--I emphasize, can--lead to a way to prevent a conflagration in the Middle East.

I thank Senator Menendez for his leadership, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, again, I hope our colleagues understand we are either going to do this finite list or we will have cloture and nonrelevant amendments will automatically fall. I hope everybody understands this is one of two options, and it seems to me if we agree on a finite list, we can then have a better chance for amendments to be considered.

I wish to thank the majority leader and all our colleagues for their patience throughout this very difficult process. I hope, in the interests of achieving the objective of passing this legislation, we will allow the amendments that are relevant and debate and votes.

I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. She is an advocate and a very active and important member of our committee.

I also would wish to thank her for arranging yesterday's event on behalf of and in memory of one of the great Members of this body, Warren Rudman. I thought it was a wonderful event, and I thank the Senator, both senators from New Hampshire, for arranging what I think was a very fitting tribute to one of the real giants of the Senate in the New Hampshire tradition, so I thank the Senator.

The Vice President of the United States also was in attendance.

As my friend from Michigan knows, the Vice President of the United States is not notorious for his brevity.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I hope our colleagues and staffs who are observing our deliberations would think seriously about their amendments and how they can be consolidated, whether they really need to be considered. We are working through large numbers of amendments. We will probably be revealing a finite list, and we hope we can satisfy all Members' concerns.

I yield.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, could I say we now have, believe it or not, a pretty manageable list. We have been working for 3 days on amendments, on compiling amendments, on disposing of amendments, various managers' packages, and we will have an additional managers' package or two today.

I ask our colleagues to cooperate in the next 20 minutes and have their staffs--and themselves if they are in their offices--examine this list, which is available, and make sure it is agreeable to them so we can lock this down and then move forward to having voice votes, managers' packages, and, where required, rollcall votes. We will not deny any Senator this right, starting on Monday night. We look forward to having agreement from everybody. I believe we can, beginning on Monday, get this legislation done.

I would also like to say that I appreciate the patience of the majority leader, who has a large calendar. We appreciate his patience on this issue.

Finally, I would say again that I think we are showing and can show

Monday night that this body is capable of taking up a piece of legislation without a cloture vote, without filling up the tree, without all the other parliamentary maneuvers and objections, and come forth with a piece of legislation that I think all of us can be proud of but, more importantly, that is of significant importance to the men and women who are serving in the military and our ability to protect this Nation.

I thank the chairman again for his unstinting effort.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the majority leader again for his encouragement of this process. As I said before, I think it should be an example for addressing further pieces of legislation before this body. It has been very tough. There have been hundreds of amendments that have been filed, many of which have been disposed of.

I believe on Monday night we could complete this legislation with the cooperation of all Members so that this body could move on to other business. I want to thank again my friend, the chairman, who continues to show unlimited patience, which is a quality that I do not possess.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The amendments have been cleared on our side.

Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer for his patience and long period of time in the chair today. We, obviously, have a couple of members in the media who have no other lives.

I thank our distinguished chairman. Obviously, you have been here a long time.

I also appreciate our staffs who, again, show that work-release programs are quite successful in the Senate. Thank you very much.

All these amendments have been cleared on our side.

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

That will take approximately 30 minutes? Before the vote?

Ten minutes we will be ready to vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

I ask unanimous consent to modify the consent agreement that the Senators from New Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte and Mrs. Shaheen, have 15 minutes equally divided following the remarks of Senator Baucus.

Mr. President, I have looked at the amendment by the Senator from Oregon. He has made some modifications that I think are appropriate, and this side has no objection. I understand, however, that he will insist on a recorded vote, which is his right. But I see at this time no objection to the amendment as he describes it.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

By the way, did we move to reconsider?

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, briefly I was just going over the list of amendments that have been filed. I urge my colleagues who want those amendments considered to come over and state their intention and we will move forward with the amendments. I keep hearing from my staff this Senator is not ready yet, that Senator is not ready yet. I hope they come over, we get these amendments in order and we will dispose of them as soon as possible since we are looking at a rather late evening this evening, and even tomorrow.

We need to move these amendments. I hope my colleagues will cooperate by coming over prepared to offer those amendments.

Mr. President, I agree with the unanimous consent request----

Mr. Levin addressed the Chair.

I have to object on this side. Senator Coburn wants the same privilege every Senator has; that is, to bring up his amendment. If someone objects to that, I hope that Senator will come down and object in person because this is holding up the progress of the bill. So if there is a Whitehouse amendment that is agreed to, then a Coburn amendment certainly should be allowed as well.

So we have to object to the unanimous consent request. Hopefully, during the vote on the Merkley amendment we can work out some agreement.

I move to lay that motion upon the table.

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

I move to lay the motion on the table.

Will the Senator yield 2 minutes to me?

Madam President, there is no one I know of in this body at any time who would not want to assist and provide the best care, especially for our disabled children who have autism. It is one of the most compelling stories any of us have ever heard. But I think it is also important for us to recognize that when we continue to add on benefits without a hearing, without any scrutiny, without balancing where they are in the array of priorities we have, and without paying for them--it seems to me that in the budget we have and the expenditures we have, to just say, as the distinguished Senator from New York just stated, that we will address it next year, we will get that taken care of--we all know the hardest thing around here is to find funds for programs.

So I appreciate more than I can say the dedication of the Senator from New York on this issue, but here we go again--we are going to now bestow another entitlement that is not paid for. With all due respect, I say to the Senator from New York, why don't she give us something to pay for it with? Why don't she come up with an offset that would then not have us increase the debt by $1.9 billion? We are now adding a cost of $1.9 billion in the name of one of the most humane and compelling causes any of us know. But don't we have an obligation to the taxpayers? We have an obligation to the taxpayers to say that we are going to take care of these special needs Americans but we are going to pay for it. Instead, we are going to lay an additional

burden on the taxpayers of America which someday is going to have to be paid for--someday. It may not be in this bill, but someday it is going to have to be paid for.

Obviously this amendment is going to pass, but I would love to see the Senator from New York tell us how we are going to pay for it. I don't think that is an outrageous demand.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I believe it was Ronald Reagan who said that the closest thing to eternal life here on Earth is a government program.

Again, the complaint that we continue to hear from our constituents is that we have mortgaged our children's and our grandchildren's futures. And to somehow say, well, we are only authorizing this program for 1 year--does the Senator from New York really believe that once we start treating children with autism, we are going to terminate that program? Does she really believe that? Of course not. Of course not.

We have an obligation to the men and women, the citizens of this country whom we have saddled with a $16 trillion debt to find ways to sacrifice ourselves fiscally to pay for worthwhile programs. So I support a second-degree amendment from the Senator from Oklahoma, which is his right. It is his right to do so. And I don't see how we fulfill our obligation to our citizens by continuing to authorize and appropriate expenditure of their tax dollars without a way to pay for it except to take it out of our taxpayers' pockets.

That is not right. That is not right. The Senator from New York knows it is not right for us, no matter how worthy the cause, for us to continue this continued spend, spend, spend, debt, debt, debt that the American people are saddled with. I probably will not be paying for the national debt but my kids will, my grandkids will. Can't we for once say: Look, this is a worthwhile program, we all support taking care of people with autism, and here is how we are going to pay for it. That would be a unique experience around this body.

I yield.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I believe we will have a package, also, following this, of amendments that have been cleared by both sides.

I would like to express my personal appreciation for the cooperative and compromising fashion in which this unanimous consent agreement was entered. I would like to thank all parties, including the chairperson of the Intelligence Committee and others. I think this will allow us to move forward and complete this legislation sooner rather than later.

There are still a lot of amendments that have been filed, and at some point that has to stop and at some point we are going to have to finish all these. Many of them are duplicative and many of them are not particularly necessary, but I think we have made a giant step forward. I am confident we can complete this authorization bill and we will continue the record of now some 51 years of having completed an authorization bill.

I thank the chairman for his leadership.

Mr. President, I remind my colleagues we have been on the bill now for 2 days, so it might be time to stop filing amendments. I don't think that is an outrageous request on the part of the managers of the bill. I hope we can have those objections or concerns removed so we can at least bring the filing of amendments to a close.

I would ask the distinguished chairman, are we going to move with the managers' package now?

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2929, 2942, 3230, 2966, 2973, 2980, 2994, 3059, 3072,

3086, 3098, 3186

Those amendments are cleared.

Mr. President, after 12 hours today, 8 hours yesterday, over 42 amendments, and many more coming in the managers' package, what we have is a situation where the Senator from New York--because of his passion, which he just articulated--refuses to allow the Senator from Oklahoma his rights as a Senator; and that would be, since we have taken up this legislation with amendments and votes with a 51-vote majority as applicable, we have moved through, I am very proud to say, I think a very good process that I think all of us can be proud of.

But the Senator from New York, because of his passion and commitment and belief--all of which I respect--will now prevent the Senator from Oklahoma from having his amendment considered. Why? Because he is afraid he will lose. The Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New Hampshire and I have been losing all day long, and I am passionate about that.

But I ask my colleague from New York, do we really want to have a situation where the depth of our passion now dictates whether the Senate should be allowed to go forward? The Senator from Oklahoma has the same right as every other Senator has had to propose an amendment. I will be glad to debate it, and up or down. Because if we are now going to tell our colleagues that if you have an amendment and you feel that you are going to lose and it really goes to the heart of your beliefs, that you are not going to allow the Senate to work, I think that is a very bad and dangerous precedent for us to set.

Passions are high tonight, I say to my friend from Michigan. I think we have a pending amendment now and there will be other amendments that we will line up. We could maybe overnight calm down a little bit and move forward with a process that we have enjoyed for the last 2 days. No matter how passionate we feel about a particular issue, we should let the Senate work its will; otherwise, we will never complete a piece of legislation around here unless we go back to what we have been doing before, and that is fill up the tree, file cloture, and then none of us are able to engage in what the Senate should--and that is open and honest debate and respecting the will of the majority.

So I urge, with all respect and appreciation for the passion of the Senator from New York, allow this process to go forward. Let an amendment be considered, let a second-degree amendment be considered, and respect the will of the majority, and move on and live to fight another day; otherwise, we will derail the Defense authorization bill that we have managed to pass for the last 51 years, and the men and women who are serving in the military and our Nation's security will be jeopardized.

I don't want to get into a fight with the Senator from New York. I respect his passion. But I hope for the good of the institution he would allow this process to go forward just as it has for the last couple of days.

I thank my friend from New York for listening.

Mr. President, could I also add, I think we need to look at this in the larger context. The larger context is that there is a looming crisis in this body. The majority leader is going to possibly exercise a nuclear option, which then would change the way we do business around here, especially on the motion to proceed. The Senator from Michigan and I had two goals in mind: one, to achieve conclusion of the Defense authorization bill, which is vital to our national security on which I think we would all agree. But we also wanted to show our colleagues, and maybe the country, that we could move forward in a normal fashion with legislation, amendments, and final votes without cloture motions, without blocking things, without objecting to other people's amendments, and time agreements such as we have just completed in the last 20 hours, some 42 amendments that have been completed.

Again, I urge my colleagues, let's show ourselves and the majority leader and those who want to exercise this nuclear option that we can take up legislation in an orderly fashion and come to a conclusion and do the people's work.

There is more here, frankly, than just a refusal to allow an amendment.

We are again going to show that we have to file cloture and then there will be people going on and on. Then I say to my friends on this side of the aisle, that is going to mean it is more likely that we have this showdown which we think, many of us think, would be devastating to this institution and the way that it has done business for a couple of hundred years.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, as I understand it, there are still no time agreements on this?

I still have the floor.

I wanted to clarify.

I completed my statement.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object----

We now have 17 more amendments. We will be proceeding tomorrow morning. I want to tell my colleagues, we will be looking at other amendments to put into a package we can agree on, but I also urge many of my colleagues who have redundant and duplicative amendments to look at their amendments and withdraw them if possible so we can dispose of remaining amendments as soon as possible tomorrow.

I thank especially Senator Feinstein and Senator Graham and Senator Ayotte and those who were involved in this whole detainee issue. I think it was a result that helped us to move forward enormously. I thank, obviously, the chairman for his unlimited patience, which is a quality which I do not have.

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

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

All right. I intend to speak on that shortly.

I see the chairman is here.

Mr. President, I rise to say I think we have made great progress. I think we have addressed the major issues concerning this legislation, although there are certainly other issues our colleagues feel are very important. But we should have reached a point now after 3 days that we put together a list of amendments. We can decide whether those amendments can be agreed upon, dropped or voted on. But it is time we put that list together and, obviously, with that being accomplished, we could get this thing wrapped up without having to go through the process of cloture and the intervening hours and all the parliamentary procedures that are embodied in that process.

I thank the chairman and thank the presiding officer.

Madam President, could I say, I thank my dear and old friend from Michigan. I was recollecting that he and I have now worked together for over a quarter of a century. But far more important than that, this legislation and how we handle it, I say to all my colleagues, can be a model for how this body should do business: Take up a piece of legislation, have amendments and debate, and move forward. If that requires long hours, and even occasionally a Friday or even more, then I think our colleagues should be prepared to do that. We are not sent here for a 3-day workweek. We are sent here to do the people's business.

I am not proud, Madam President--and I will not point fingers at anybody--it was judged by historians the last session of Congress was the least productive since 1947. Now, maybe Senator Levin and I were around in 1947, but we do not remember exactly what happened in those days. But the fact is that when we are looking at basically continuous gridlock, day after day, week after week, month after month, then we have to change the way we do business.

Hanging over all this, I say to my friends on this side of the aisle, is a change in the rules, which could cause what we used to call the nuclear option, which we were able to avoid some years ago when this sort of same thing was contemplated on the confirmation process of judges.

So we are now proceeding, I say to my friend from Michigan, without a motion to proceed, without a cloture vote, without the normal parliamentary back and forth that takes up 2 or 3 days of every week here, and we want people to come to the floor, have amendments--as there is one pending from the Senator from Colorado--we debate it openly and honestly, we have votes on it, and we move forward. If it requires quite a while--because we are talking about this Nation's security, the National Defense Authorization

Act--then we should be willing to spend those hours on it.

So it seems to me, if we can do what the distinguished chairman and I contemplate; that is, that we move forward with the amendments, we have open and honest debate--we will work with any of our Members to try to make sure their issues and their amendments get the consideration they deserve. But we also may have to put in long hours in order to do so. There is no reason to use a parliamentary mechanism to keep us from addressing this Nation's national security. The lives of the men and women who are serving are dependent upon the work we are doing, and for someone--individual Members of this body--to hold up the whole process because of his or her specific issue is not appropriate treatment of this issue.

I urge all my colleagues to cooperate. I believe we can show the entire country that we are capable of moving forward and addressing the issues in a measured, mature, and productive fashion, which is what the American people are demanding of us. I do not need to remind my colleagues of our approval ratings. But there is ample reason for that disapproval because we have not moved forward and done the people's business.

Again, I urge all my colleagues to show the kind of forbearance and the kind of maturity that is necessary in order to complete this legislation.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my friend from Michigan, Chairman Levin, for his leadership in writing this year's Defense authorization bill. We have worked together for many years now, and the chairman has set a high standard of cooperation and bipartisanship that befits the esteemed history of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

I am pleased that we will finally have the opportunity to discuss and debate this crucial piece of bipartisan legislation, which has been on the Senate's calendar for almost 6 months. My colleagues and I have come to the Senate floor numerous times during those months to ask the majority leader to call up the Defense authorization bill. While I had hoped to get started on this bill much earlier, I do appreciate the majority leader's offer to bring up the bill with an open process for dealing with amendments. Unfortunately, here we are, with only a few weeks left in this Congress, just beginning debate on one of the most critical pieces of legislation the Congress annually considers. So I ask my colleagues' cooperation in offering relevant amendments with limited time for debate, so that we may afford all Senators an opportunity to address their ideas and concerns with respect to national defense.

Because of the delay in bringing up this bill, we are considering the Defense authorization bill under the imminent threat of budget sequestration mandated by last year's Budget Control Act. Pentagon leadership has repeatedly warned that these automatic, across-the-board cuts to defense spending, totaling almost half a trillion dollars over the next decade, would devastate the Department's ability to provide for the Nation's defense. Sequestration would undermine the readiness of the armed services; dramatically reduce our ability to project power and defend our interests at a time when the world is becoming more dangerous; jeopardize the livelihood of civilian and uniformed personnel alike; and bring with it the likelihood of hundreds of thousands of layoffs. Furthermore, the way in which these cuts would be applied will likely require that thousands of contracts be terminated and renegotiated at a huge cost to the taxpayer.

It is unconscionable that the President has not come to the Congress with a proposal to avoid the devastation of sequestration, not only on our national security but on our economic security as well. It has been over a year since the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, or supercommittee, admitted defeat, and the President has shown no leadership and offered no solutions to the impending sequestration. Many of us in this body have been meeting and discussing potential alternatives to sequestration. Sequestration will take effect on January 2, just a short time from now. We need leadership to avoid this disaster and to address the spending and revenue issues that have brought our Nation to the fiscal cliff.

The Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act contains many ``must pass'' authorizations, including a pay raise for our men and women in the Armed Forces, bonuses, health care, and quality of life programs that are essential to the readiness of our Armed Forces and the well-being of their families. The bill helps to address the needs of wounded service members and their families. Military construction and family housing projects cannot proceed without the specific authorizations contained in this bill.

This bill also includes important authorities that support our national security objectives around the world, including an extension of the Afghan Security Forces Fund, a program instrumental to our efforts to build the capacity of the Afghan Army and Police. It also extends the CERP program which provides commanders on the ground with the ability to fund small-scale humanitarian projects that directly benefit the Afghan people, as well as the Coalition Support Funds program which reimburses cooperating nations supporting the effort in Afghanistan. The bill also contains a provision mandating an independent assessment of the size, structure, and capability requirements of the Afghanistan National Security Forces necessary to provide enduring security for their country so it does not revert to a safe haven for international terrorism.

In the area of military compensation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the President's request for fiscal year 2013 for pay and benefits of current and retired members of the military represents more than one-quarter of DOD's total base budget request. In light of this, the bill would establish a Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission to review these benefits and recommend any future changes necessary to ensure both quality of life and sustainable benefits for those who serve.

In the area of acquisition and contracting, the bill includes provisions that would improve how the Department buys weapons systems and other goods and services by prohibiting the use of cost-type contracts for the production of major weapon systems; requiring the Department to revise its ``profit policy'' to make sure that it effectively incentivizes contractors to control costs; requiring that the Department notify Congress of potential termination liability on contracts for major weapon systems; and calling on the Department to improve its guidance on how it procures capability in response to ``joint emergent operational needs''.

Several provisions in the bill continue the committee's strong oversight of troubled programs. The bill fences 50 percent of the funding for the second Ford-class aircraft carrier until the Navy submits a report on how it will control its construction costs, while the accompanying Senate report directs the Navy to recertify the current $8.1 billion cost cap on CVN-79. Other provisions enhance oversight of, and transparency into, the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship Mission Packages; subject how the Air Force maintains and modernizes F-22A aircraft to greater oversight; and continue strong oversight of the F-35 program.

This year's bill also contains important initiatives intended to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars by codifying the 2014 goal for the Department of Defense to achieve an auditable statement of budgetary resources; requiring the implementation of recommendations provided by the GAO to eliminate duplicative programs and functions; imposing additional protections for DOD whistleblowers; and requiring a detailed cost estimate and personnel plan for the new Defense Clandestine Service.

Another important provision would require the commander of U.S. Cyber Command to provide a strategy for the development and deployment of offensive cyber capabilities to serve as deterrents to, and for response in the event of, a cyberattack. I believe strongly that cyber warfare will be the key battlefield of the 21st century, and I am concerned about our ability to fight and win in this new domain without a robust offensive capability. Crafting a comprehensive, well-defined strategy, required under this provision and others, should also spur U.S. Cyber Command to identify critical personnel

requirements for offensive cyber missions, which are presently understaffed.

Again this year, the committee restricted further construction on Guam related to the realignment of U.S. Marines in the Pacific theater until Congress has a clear understanding of the costs and strategic implications of the proposed force realignments on our strong allies in the region. The bill also contains no funding for the Office of Economic Adjustment activities on Guam, and it requires future requests for the construction of public facilities and infrastructure be specifically authorized by law, thereby eliminating another potential source of earmarks.

In addition, this bill would impose restrictions on DOD expenditures to develop a commercial biofuels industry. I strongly support continued Defense Department research in energy technologies that reduce fuel demand for our weapons systems and save lives on the battlefield. But I do not condone siphoning defense funds from those critical efforts to pay $27 per gallon for biofuels or $170 million to use as venture capital for the construction of a commercial biofuels refinery. This is not a core defense need and should be left to the private sector, or to the Department of Energy, which received over $4 billion last year for energy research and development for related programs. The committee's action corrects this misplacement of priorities.

Even without the massive budget cuts that will occur if sequestration is not averted, the President last year proposed $487 billion in defense budget cuts by fiscal year 2021. The total funding authorized in this bill reflects the President's reduced defense budget plan. However, within that total funding, the Armed Services Committee cut an additional $3.3 billion from programs requested by the Department of Defense to fund congressional special interest items. I am concerned that, in light of the budget realities facing the Pentagon and the Nation, at a time when our military is being asked to make drastic cuts in personnel, some of our colleagues continue to divert resources from vital military requirements to fund unnecessary and unrequested projects.

Some argue that the Department of Defense does not have a monopoly on good ideas. While true, the committee has an obligation to ensure that funding added to new programs results in tangible value to our national security and our military personnel. Terms like ``Committee initiative,'' as used in this bill, do not effectively disguise additions to the budget that are earmarks by any other name. Two perennial additions that highlight the problem of unrequested authorizations are the Industrial Base Innovation Fund, IBIF, and the Defense Rapid Innovation Program, DRIP, which together are earmarked for $230 million in this bill. These funds were not requested by the Department of Defense and as a result, the Department has struggled to put them on contract and manage the money for any useful purpose.

Serious threats face our Nation, most recently evidenced by the deaths of four brave Americans in Benghazi, and our Armed Forces are still engaged in operations in Afghanistan and deployed around the world. At the same time, our Nation is facing a severe fiscal crisis which is only weeks away, due to the unwillingness or inability of the President and Congress to agree on a solution to the current tax-and- spending stalemate.

And once again, Congress has failed to enact either an authorization or appropriations bill for the Department of Defense almost 2 months into the fiscal year. We have failed to provide the Department with a baseline to plan for sequestration, if it is ultimately not averted. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to swiftly approve this legislation so that a Defense authorization bill can be enacted before the end of the year.

Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair, what are we waiting for?

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3051 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

This amendment is to authorize additional Marine Corps personnel for the performance of security functions for the U.S. Embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic facilities abroad.

The tragic events in Benghazi on September 11 and the ongoing tumult throughout the Middle East and north Africa should serve as a stark reminder that the security environment confronting American personnel serving in U.S. Embassies and consulates abroad is as dangerous as any time I can remember.

Despite claims by some, al-Qaida and its affiliates remain dangerous and determined to kill Americans. This reality must force us to reassess the threat to U.S. Embassies and consulates around the world and provide additional resources and military end strength; that is, U.S. marines, to increase protection of diplomatic personnel from those threats. This amendment will do that. It will provide the necessary end strength and resources to support an increase in Marine Corps security at U.S. Embassies and consulates throughout the world--up to 1,000 additional personnel--in particular at locations identified by the Secretary of State as in need of increased security in light of known and emerging threats to U.S. personnel and property by terrorists.

Most Americans believe that U.S. marines are stationed to protect our Embassy personnel abroad, but I think they would be surprised to learn that marines are assigned in only slightly more than half of our diplomatic missions worldwide--182 missions in 137 countries. Moreover, their numbers are small. A typical detachment consists of only six military Marine personnel. Today there are 126 U.S. diplomatic missions outside the United States without Marine Corps security protection, including parts of Asia and Africa where we suspect al-Qaida is expanding its presence.

As the nature of threats to American diplomatic personnel is changing, the Marine Corps security guard mission has not. The current mission of this program dates back to the post-war era of 1948, principally for the protection of classified information and equipment in diplomatic facilities.

The Marine Security Guard Program is also the only Marine Corps program that is under the operational command of the Department of State. For this reason, this amendment would also require the President to present discrete budget requests for Marine Corps security personnel overseas in support of diplomatic personnel and Marine Corps end strength and resources required to maintain readiness to protect our national security. These are distinct missions, and increasing one--as is necessary in light of the attack in Benghazi--cannot come at the expense of another.

Americans may believe our marines are the first line of defense in attacks on diplomatic compounds overseas. The truth is that they are not. They are not mandated to engage with attackers and in some cases may not be permitted to engage. For this reason, this amendment calls on the Department of Defense to reassess this mission and rules of engagement as we increase our capability to protect embassies and consulates throughout the world.

As the world now knows, there were no marine guards at the consulate at Benghazi at the time of the September 11 attack despite the rapidly deteriorating security situation. Would their presence have made a difference and saved the lives of our heroic Ambassador and his security personnel? I think I know the answer to that question, and so do the American people.

So I think it is time for the administration to rapidly complete a reassessment of the risk to U.S. personnel conducting diplomacy abroad posed by terrorists and others wishing to do us harm and ensure that personnel at all 285 missions, not just 182, have adequate protection, including by U.S. marines. I am not saying this amendment requires that marine presence at every one of these missions. What we are saying is that as a result of the risk assessments, we have sufficient authorization and appropriation for adequate protection, part of which--and a major part--is the presence of the U.S. Marine Corps.

I call on my colleagues to fulfill the mission of the Marine Security Guard Program to ensure that U.S. personnel are protected and authorize the necessary end strength and resources for the Marine Corps to achieve this necessary goal.

Mr. President, at this time I yield to Senator Murray.

I ask unanimous consent the following Senators be added as cosponsors to my amendment No. 3051: Senators Inhofe, Ayotte, Brown of Massachusetts, and Webb.

Mr. President, are we going to voice-vote the amendment at this time?

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask that the Senator modify his request that the Senator be immediately followed by Senator Kyl to offer an amendment, with the proviso that it is cleared by the majority.

Reserving the right to object, but I am not objecting, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman.

Is it our intention to continue to consider amendments following this amendment, and I don't know whether there is a possibility of votes, but we certainly--isn't it correct to say we could consider amendments, and we will try to dispose of them given the limited time we have to consider the bill?

Debate.

I thank my friend, and I do not object.

Mr. President, I will be asking for the yeas and nays at the appropriate time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes for the Senator from Indiana.

I thank the chairman.

I yield all remaining time.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. I think we have made reasonably good progress today. I think we have disposed of a number of important amendments. We still have a number of issues, particularly the detainee issue, which will probably require that we have a number of speakers. But also I hope we could reach a time limit on that.

The Senator mentioned that there may be possibly a side-by-side or a second-degree amendment to the Ayotte amendment. But I think the chairman would agree, we have made pretty good progress. We have still got quite a long way to go. We have a full day tomorrow. Hopefully we can get it down to a bare minimum of amendments so we can finish.

I thank all of our colleagues for their cooperation. We thank the Senator from North Carolina for discussing her amendment this evening.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that LCDR Todd Ladwig, a Navy fellow in my office, and interns Jackie Kerber, Tassilo von Bismark, and Daniel Edwards, be allowed floor privileges for the duration of the Senate's debate on S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. President, I think my colleagues and I who have been here for a while remember one of the more moving moments that we experienced in our service here, and that was the signing of the disabilities law on the White House lawn. Bipartisan members of the disabled community were there. The President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush, and so many others were there. One of the prime individuals who was largely responsible was our beloved leader at that time, Bob Dole, a man who epitomized, in my view, how a disability can be overcome to go to the highest levels of American Government.

I freely admit that I love Bob Dole. I listen to him. I appreciate his leadership. I think the majority leader would agree that we appreciated his bipartisanship during a great deal of his time.

I hope my colleagues will, before deciding to vote, at least listen to the letter that was addressed to all of us by Senator Bob Dole which we received yesterday:

As you may know, tomorrow the Senate will vote on the

Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD.

Unfortunately, I am currently at Walter Reed and so cannot

call you personally, but wanted to connect with you via e-

mail on this time sensitive matter and ask for your help. I

hope you will support this important treaty.

The CRPD is the first international treaty to address

disability rights globally. It is an opportunity to advance

the great American tradition of supporting the rights and

inclusion of people with disabilities on a global basis.

Ratification of the CRPD will improve fiscal, technological,

and communication access outside the United States, thereby

helping to ensure that Americans--particularly many thousands

of disabled American veterans--have equal opportunities to

live, work, and travel abroad. It will also create a new

global market for accessibility goods.

The CRPD is supported by a number of individuals and

groups, including 21 veterans groups, 26 faith-based

organizations, over 300 disability organizations, and the

Chamber of Commerce. Your vote would help to reaffirm the

goals of equality, access, and inclusion for Americans with

disabilities--both when those affected are in the United

States and outside of our country's borders.

I would greatly appreciate your support of the CRPD.

God bless America, Bob Dole.

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

Madam President, before us for advice and consent is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the CRPD. I support the treaty and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.

In America, I do not believe anyone considers someone with a disability to have any less rights or protections than people without disabilities. I would suggest this reality is partly due to our values but also due to bipartisan efforts to codify in law that persons with disabilities are afforded equal access and protection from discrimination.

Over 22 years ago members of both parties came together to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is not only the law of the land but it is the template for the CRPD in countries around the world that are moving to update their laws. Both the ADA and the ADA amendments of 2008 were passed with wide bipartisan margins. They are examples that from time to time we can engage in a bipartisan effort in this body.

In many countries accessibility to public spaces is not available to persons with disabilities. They are still discriminated against or cast aside in societies across the globe. Horrifically, infanticide occurs in many countries where children are born with disabilities. Protecting the rights of persons with disabilities, all persons, is not a political issue, it is a human issue.

Regardless of where in the world a disabled person strives to live a normal, independent life, where basic rights and accessibilities are available, disability rights and protections have always been a bipartisan issue. Ratifying this treaty should be no different.

Senator Durbin and I and Senator Kerry began months ago--with Senator Harkin, Senator Lugar, many others. We had been discussing months ago how we could work together in a bipartisan manner and build support for ratification of the treaty.

As I mentioned, we have worked closely with Senators Moran, Barrasso, Coons, Tom Udall, Harkin, and others. I wish to thank them for their support and efforts to get us to this point. Senator Kerry deserves special recognition for scheduling a Foreign Relations Committee hearing and a markup that favorably reported the measure out of the committee. I also wish to thank the majority leader for scheduling this treaty for consideration today.

I think my colleagues should appreciate that this treaty is supported by over 300 disability organizations, at least 21 U.S. military veterans service organizations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and many other organizations. It is not an accident that literally every veterans organization in this country supports this treaty because it is our veterans, many of whom are coming home as we speak, who will live and travel abroad and will benefit from this treaty.

As I have been traveling around the world where conflict is ever present, I have seen that so many people will benefit from the principles embodied in the treaty. So I would argue this effort is probably more important today in the world than it has been in the past. Another strong supporter of this treaty is one of my closest friends and heroes, Bob Dole. As you know, Bob has dedicated nearly his entire life to this country, through his military service and, following that, many years in public service.

He has dedicated the past several months to encourage support in the Senate for this treaty. Earlier, I read a statement from Bob. I would like to mention some parts of the statement. I will point out rather poignantly he says:

It was an exceptional group I joined during World War II,

which no one joins by personal

choice. It is a group that neither respects or discriminates

by age, sex, wealth, education, skin color, religious

beliefs, political party, power, prestige. That group,

Americans with disabilities, has grown in size ever since.

So, therefore, has the importance of maintaining access for

people with disabilities to mainstream American life, whether

it is access to a job, an education, or registering to vote.

I will not go through Bob Dole's entire statement. I would point out there are still thousands and thousands and thousands of his comrades who came home disabled in some respect--Bob, of course, in the most painful way. We all recall, with some nostalgia and appreciation, that he and our other wonderful hero Senator Inouye spent time in the same hospital following World War II going through very difficult periods of rehabilitation, a friendship that was forged there that has lasted ever since.

I can assure you there is nothing Bob Dole would want more than to be here on the floor of this Senate delivering his own speech before the Senate and urging colleagues to consider this treaty based on facts and on our values that ensure, protect, and advance the rights of persons with disabilities, whether on U.S. soil or around the globe where we can make a difference.

I received a letter today from--it is very difficult for me to pronounce his name, but I will try--from one individual, Chen Guangcheng. He is an individual who is a blind Chinese activist who recently came to the United States of America thanks to the efforts of many of the leaders in our administration, including the Secretary of State.

I wish to quote from his letter. This is an individual who is blind, who fought for human rights in his country, in China, and now, thank God, is in the United States of America. His letter says:

Dear Senators, I am writing you to personally ask for your

support for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities. As you know, my work on civil rights began with

trying to ensure that people with disabilities in my home

country of China were afforded the same rights as everyone

else. The CRPD is making this idea real in significant ways

around the world. Today, worldwide there are over 1 billion

people with disabilities, and 80 percent of them live in

developing countries. Disability rights is an issue that the

world cannot afford to overlook.

When the United States enacted the Americans with

Disabilities Act over twenty years ago, the idea of true

equality for people with disabilities became a reality. Many

nations have followed in America's footsteps and now are

coming together under shared principles of equality, respect,

and dignity for people with disabilities as entailed in the

CRPD. The U.S.--which was instrumental in negotiating the

CRPD--can continue to advance both its principles and issues

of practical accessibility for its citizens and all people

around the world, and by ratifying the treaty, so take its

rightful place of leadership in the arena of human rights.

As I continue my studies in the United States, it is a

great pleasure to now learn firsthand how the U.S. developed

such a comprehensive and strong system of protection for its

citizens with disabilities. I am so hopeful that you will

support ratification and allow others to benefit from these

triumphs. Thank you for your leadership.

That is a very moving letter from a man who risked his very life, a man who is blind but still risked his life for the freedom of others, including rights in his country for individuals with disabilities.

There is a letter we have from former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and White House Counsel Boyden Gray. They wrote to the Foreign Relations Committee to address issues being raised by opponents, particularly homeschool advocates who believe parental rights to homeschool or make decisions for their children will be impaired. I take it that my colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, addressed this aspect of the concerns the homeschoolers have.

Here is what they wrote, the former Attorney General--I have been blessed to live and know many Attorneys General, but I think all of us on both sides of the aisle would agree that Dick Thornburgh ranks up there at the top. This is what they write concerning the issue of homeschooling:

Nothing in this treaty prevents parents from homeschooling

or making decisions for their children. This treaty embraces

IDEA, the ADA, and all of the disability nondiscrimination

legislation that has made the United States a leader on

disability rights. The specific provisions on women and

children state that women and children with disabilities

cannot be the victims of illegal discrimination--as is the

case under U.S. law. Furthermore, the CRPD recognizes and

protects the important role of the family and specifically

protects children from being separated from their parents on

the basis of a disability. We take a back seat to no one in

our defense of the rights of parents to raise their children

or in our support for our federalist system of government

with sovereignty at both the Federal and State levels of

government.

Some opponents are also suggesting that somehow the U.S. law or existing parental rights would be impacted by supporting the treaty. Attorney General Thornburgh and White House Counsel Gray address this as well:

We understand that some are claiming that changes in U.S.

law would be necessary to implement the obligations the U.S.

will undertake as a result of ratifying the treaty, or that

the RUDs that the Senate will approve will not have the force

of law. Such claims are not correct and, quite simply,

extraordinary. When the U.S. Senate attaches conditions to

its consent to a treaty, they are binding on the President,

and the President cannot proceed to ratify a treaty without

giving them effect. The Senate has a long tradition of

careful consideration and frequent adoption of limited RUDs,

as is the case here. Any claims that such limited conditions

do not have the force of law, or are inconsistent with the

object and purpose of a treaty on disabilities that U.S. laws

inspired in the first place, is contrary to the long-held

position articulated by the Senate--regardless of which party

is in control (and in spite of whatever theories that may

momentarily exist in academic circles).

Administrations of both parties have also uniformly held

this view. In 1995 the U.S. stated that ``reservations are an

essential part of a State's consent to be bound. They cannot

simply be erased. This reflects the fundamental principle of

the law of treaties: obligation is based on consent. A State

which does not consent to a treaty is not bound by that

treaty. A State which expressly withholds its consent from a

provision cannot be presumed, on the basis of some legal

fiction, to be bound by it.''

Furthermore, the CRPD protects the critical role of the

family by specifically recognizing the role of parents in

raising children with disabilities, and prohibits the

dissolution or separation of families because one or both of

the parents are persons with disabilities. Article 23,

entitled ``Respect for home and family,'' provides that

``children with disabilities have equal rights with respect

to family life,'' that nations ratifying the treaty have an

obligation to ``undertake to provide early and comprehensive

information, services, and support to children with

disabilities and their families, and that ``(i)in no case

shall a child be separated from parents on the basis of a

disability of either the child or one or both of the

parents.'' Finally, the CRPD will provide much-needed

protection in other countries where there is no provision for

birth certificates or birth registration for children with

disabilities. In particular, it will help protect against the

horrible practice of infanticide of children born with

disabilities--a practice that can be facilitated through the

denial of birth certificates or registration to disabled

babies.

Every action we have ever taken on disability policy has been bipartisan. Being able to live independently is a basic human dignity we support, and it is a value we can help advance internationally by supporting this treaty.

I would like to say in closing that I thank both of my colleagues, Senator Lugar and Senator Kerry.

I think we might think just for a moment, in conclusion, about the fact that there are various conflicts going on around the world. In Syria, we have seen 40,000 killed, and I don't know how many--100,000, 200,000 who have been wounded, many of them innocent women and children, because of the ferocity and barbaric conduct of this conflict. I don't know how many people today in China are subject to infanticide because there is not a birth certificate available. And we know that practice, not only in China but in other parts of the world--a lot of it in Asia--goes on. We live in a very troubled and turbulent world. Not only will we have the normal, usual situation--and I mean normal--there are people who are born with disabilities from time to time. I have had the honor of knowing children, as all of us have, and there are no more loving and caring people in the world than our children and our citizens who have disabilities. There are going to be a lot more because of the conflicts that are going on in various places in the world. They might deserve our special attention because they are living in countries that will have a lot less of the rule of law, a lot

less ability to care for them, particularly in the short term. Whether it be Libya, whether it be Syria, whether it be Iraq, or whether it be Afghanistan, all of these countries, we are going to have citizens who have been the victims of the violence of war. I believe the best thing we can do for them in the short term is take whatever action we can to see that they are not discriminated against, that they receive the same protections we guarantee our Americans with disabilities, and that they are afforded an opportunity to live full and beautiful lives.

Finally, I would like to say that my two friends and I have been around this place for quite a while--in the view of many, perhaps too long--but the fact is that one of the highlights of our shared experiences was on the lawn of the White House when a guy, Holmes Tuttle--remember one of the leaders of the disabilities movement, Mr. Tuttle--and others from the disabilities community were there, and the President of the United States at the time, President Herbert Walker Bush, and our beloved Bob Dole were there. It was a great moment for all of us. It was a great moment for America. It was all of us doing something, contributing in a small way to make better the lives of people who otherwise may have had great challenges in having the kinds of lives we want every American citizen to lead.

I believe that this treaty, this action is an adequate and important followup because I don't think there is anybody who denies--yes, there are problems with any legislation of the sweeping magnitude and scope of the ADA, but I don't know of anybody who doesn't believe it was a magnificent success and an enormous contribution to making the lives of our citizens with disabilities better than they otherwise would have been. So wouldn't we want that same thing to happen to everyone in the world? Wouldn't we want these children who are going through such difficult times in their lives and wouldn't we want those who have been wounded and maimed to have an opportunity for a better life? Wouldn't we want to, as Americans, be proud that we blazed the trail with the ADA in a really remarkable shift and change and an act of almost miraculous benefit to so many of our citizens, wouldn't we want that also to apply to the other citizens of the world? I think most of us would, and I think most of the American people who are paying attention to this believe that. That is why so many of our veterans organizations are in support. That is why so many in the disabilities community are in support. That is why there are so many charitable organizations that are in support.

So I again thank both of my colleagues and tell them that I certainly hope we can convince all of our colleagues that one of the nicest things we could do as a Christmas present for people around the world is to ratify this treaty.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to express my appreciation for Senator Lieberman's and Senator Collins' hard work. We have had some disagreements. I still believe that if we could have, say, five amendments that would be voted and debated, I think we could move forward with this bill. I truly believe that.

I would like to see, possibly even right after this vote, if we could reach some agreement between the leaders and ourselves that we could say there would be five pending amendments and perhaps we could go ahead and debate and vote on those. I, again, think we have some very significant differences, but the fact that the chairman and the two cochairmen or whatever they call themselves have worked incredibly hard on this issue, they deserve debate. I hope they would understand we are seeking like five amendments.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

This resolution calls for the establishment of a select committee of the Senate to make a thorough and complete investigation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the response of the United States Government to the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks against the United States consulate and personnel in Benghazi, Libya, and to make recommendations to prevent similar attacks in the future. I send the resolution to the desk in behalf of myself, Senator Graham of South Carolina, and Senator Ayotte of New Hampshire.

Before I go into the need for this select committee--and there clearly is a need because there is a huge credibility gap amongst the American people because of the now going on 8 weeks of contradictory reports, contradictory statements, beginning with the President of the United States. The President of the United States, on the day of September 12, went to the Rose Garden and stated that he opposed terrorist attacks. Then, that evening, as we found out after the election via an interview with ``60 Minutes,'' the President stated-- and I will provide the quotes for the record: ``We don't know who was responsible for these attacks.'' So he went from condemning terrorist attacks to saying to Mr. Croft of ``60 Minutes'' that he didn't know who was responsible, and then in the days following, in various venues, whether they be late night talk shows or the United Nations, the President went on to allege that this was a hideous video that triggered a spontaneous demonstration. Not true. Not true. The President of the United States did not tell the American people the truth about the attacks that took the lives of four brave Americans and that went on for 7 hours, for which we were totally unprepared.

Four brave Americans died. It has now been 8 weeks. The American people have received nothing but contradictory statements from all levels of our government.

One of the more salient events occurred 5 days after, when clearly it had been identified as an al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist attack. The United Nations Ambassador, at the direction of the White House, went on all the Sunday talk shows to allege that this was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video, as did our Secretary of State, as did, most regrettably, the President of the United States.

The American people deserve the facts. The American people need to know why the security at the consulate was so inadequate despite two previous attacks on that facility, including an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador. What did the President know, when did he know it, and what did he do about it? Did the President's national security staff make him aware of these attacks and, if they did, why did he not take the lead? What actions, if any, were taken to respond to a classified cable that was sent from our Embassy in Libya to the State Department on August 16, weeks before the September 11 attack, stating there were numerous armed groups in Benghazi that posed a threat to American interests, and that the consulate in Benghazi could not survive a sustained attack such as the one that eventually occurred a month later at the hands of one of these militia groups which was al- Qaida-affiliated? What actions, if any, did the Secretary of State take in response to these repeated warnings?

I saw Christopher Stevens in Tripoli on July 7. He told me of his security concerns then. The Senator from South Carolina and others wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal talking about the need for security, the problems that the nascent Libyan Government was having. Obviously, those were ignored.

Why were repeated requests for greater security in Libya turned down by officials at the State Department? On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history and after multiple attacks this year on our consulate in Benghazi and other western interests there, why were U.S. Armed Forces in the region not ready--not ready--and positioned to respond to what was clearly a foreseeable emergency?

The fight went on for 7 hours. Why did senior administration officials seek to blame a spontaneous demonstration when there was no spontaneous demonstration, which they were seeing in real-time, which the surveillance cameras within and without our consulate clearly indicated? Why is it that anyone, including our Ambassador to the

United Nations, would believe that spontaneous demonstrations are composed of people with mortars, with rocket-propelled grenades and heavy weapons? No one believes that. Why did President Obama insist that he labeled events in Benghazi an act of terrorism on September 12 when we know now--I repeat, we know now--that in an interview with ``60 Minutes'' on the same day he explicitly refused to characterize the attack in this way and he then spent nearly 2 weeks putting the emphasis on a spontaneous protest to a hateful video, including in his address to the United Nations on September 25?

We need a select committee. Americans deserve to know. The families of those slain and murdered Americans need to know. And why in the world the administration or our friends on the other side of the aisle or anyone would resist the appointment of a select committee I do not know. We have to have a select committee. The people of the United States deserve it and the families of those murdered deserve it. They deserve answers. For 8 weeks now, they have not gotten the answers. The only credible way of getting those answers is with a select committee.

Today I understand that the President of the United States took some umbrage at statements Senator Ayotte, Senator Graham, and I have made concerning this issue. We believe whoever it is must be held responsible, I say to the President of the United States. Most importantly, the President of the United States, who is Commander in Chief, who so far, in my view, has not exercised those responsibilities and has not informed the American people of the facts--this President and this administration have either been guilty of colossal incompetence or engaged in a coverup, neither of which is acceptable to the American people.

If it appears that I feel strongly about this issue, I speak with the families, I believe, of those who were murdered. I speak as a friend of Christopher Stevens. I speak as a person who knows something about warfare. I speak with some authority that this attack clearly could have been prevented if the facts on the ground had been taken into consideration, including the ample warnings--including the warnings that were sent on August 16--stating that the consulate could not successfully resist a concentrated attack by al-Qaida-affiliated groups. That alone convinces me, and I believe most Americans when they find out, that the actions to prevent these murders were clearly insufficient, if not totally incompetent.

I see the Senator from South Carolina is here to join me as well as the Senator from New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with both the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New Hampshire.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

One of the most salient points of this whole scenario was 5 days after the attack when the Ambassador of the United Nations went on all the Sunday talk shows to allege that this was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video. Those talking points the Ambassador used didn't come from the CIA, it is my understanding; they came from the White House. Who in the White House--was it the President of the United States, was it one of his people--who was it that gave her talking points that clearly indicated something for which there was no basis in fact, certainly not after 5 days? Did the President ask about this situation? Did the President of the United States say, Wait a minute, is she going out there, when right after, on the program I was on, ``Face The Nation,'' the President and the Libya national assembly came on right after and said this is an al-Qaida attack, this is a terrorist attack, and then for days afterwards, the President of the United States goes out--including the United Nations--saying that this was a hateful video that triggered a flash mob. None of this has a shred of credibility.

So when we talk about the need for a select committee, when the White House is responsible for these talking points, if they were, then that covers all of the different oversight committees that we have in the U.S. Senate.

I only have one additional comment, and that is, I understand at the President's press conference today, he said not to, quote, pick on his Ambassador to the United Nations, to, quote, pick on him. That statement is really remarkable in that if the President thinks that we are picking on people, he does not have any idea of how serious this issue is. I am a U.S. Senator. The Senator from New Hampshire is. We have our obligations. We have our duties representing the people who sent us here, and we are not picking on anybody. I doubt if the families of these brave Americans who were murdered would believe we are, quote, picking on anyone, that when we are trying to find out the facts, the American people deserve to know the facts.

We cannot ever let this happen again. We cannot let a security situation evolve that our lives are in danger. We cannot ignore recommendations. We cannot not have sufficient military available on a September 11, where we know that tensions are incredibly high. The American people are owed an explanation, and it is our duty to try to get that explanation for them. And if someone carried a message to the American people that was totally and utterly false with no basis in fact, then that person also has to be held accountable as well.

But first and foremost, the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, is the most responsible. I hope the President has no illusions about our view of his responsibility, which I believe is that of the American people as well.

So we need this select committee. There is no credibility left because of all the conflicting stories that have come out and the different rumors and different statements and contradictory statements and finger pointing. The American people deserve answers, not only because of those who were murdered, but to make sure that a tragedy like this never happens again.

I repeat, everybody has their responsibilities. We have ours. The President has his. And we intend to pursue this until the American people have the answers they deserve and they have confidence that these kinds of mistakes will never be repeated. We take that very seriously, and we have some disagreement when it is called ``picking on someone.''

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to address the Senate as in morning business, with a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina, and perhaps other Senators who may wish to speak.

Mr. President, before I get into the issue concerning the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, I was just informed that the President of the United States, while speaking to Hispanic television, alleged that the reason why immigration reform was not enacted in the last 4 years of his Presidency is because the Senator from Arizona walked away. Incredible. An incredible statement. I am not often in the business of accusing Presidents of the United States of not telling the truth. But facts are stubborn things.

First of all, it was then-Senator Obama who joined with Senator Kennedy and me when we were doing comprehensive immigration reform, and we pledged that we would take tough votes so the whole fragile coalition would not fall apart.

Instead of doing that, the then-Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, proposed an amendment which would have destroyed the entire coalition we had together, and did so without telling Senator Kennedy or me or anyone else, by sunsetting the provisions that called for temporary workers.

But, more importantly, in 2009, I was invited over to the White House. I went over there. It was a conversation with others about comprehensive immigration reform, and the President at that time stated they would be proposing legislation. I told him I would be glad to examine it and I would be glad to support any effort to comprehensive immigration reform that I could agree with. Nothing came from the White House--zero, not one word. Not one piece of legislation was proposed by the administration.

After the shooting and the tragedy in Tucson, the President gave a great speech. I wrote an article thanking him. I was invited over to the White House again. And when we discussed comprehensive immigration reform, I said: I am ready to sit down with you and move forward on it. He said: Of course. There was never a word. Was the President of the United States waiting for the Senator from Arizona to bring forward comprehensive immigration reform? Is that how he thinks government works? So again we find a President who wants to blame everybody else no matter what it is.

My friend from South Carolina was involved in this issue as well, and I would be interested in his observation of this entire issue. I still stand ready to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. President, on another subject, yesterday the Senate and, then later, the House were called together to get a briefing from key members of the administration, led by the Secretary of State; a high-ranking member of the FBI; our Director of National Intelligence, General Clapper; and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to tell us ostensibly what happened in the tragic deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other brave Americans.

We gathered down in the secret room, where everybody turns in their phones and BlackBerries, and we went in and listened to basically a description of America's military disposition in that part of the world--something which certainly does not warrant a supersecret briefing.

But, more importantly than that, when the Secretary and the others were asked exactly what happened--what happened here? What caused this tragedy? What was the sequence of events?--in fact, it was Senators and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee: What happened?--the answer was: Well, that is still an ongoing investigation and we cannot tell you anything.

Now, we were supposed to be down there to hear what happened, to hear the administration's version of the events of what happened. We were told nothing. We were told absolutely nothing because there is an investigation going on.

This morning in the Wall Street Journal, entitled ``Misjudgments Preceded Deadly Libya Attack,'' there is a tick-tock starting at 8 p.m. all the way through of the events that took place. Now, if that is not an incredible disrespect to the Members of the Senate, I don't know what is. Again, it is an example of the disdain with which this body is held by the administration, including, I am sorry to say, the Secretary of State. It is not that I am offended as a Senator, it is the disrespect to the institution of the Senate when we are called together ostensibly to receive information, that information they tell us they can't give us, and then it appears on the front page of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. What does that mean about the attitude this administration has to this body? Obviously, it is not one that I think is of respect.

Does the Senator wish to say something?

Mr. President, I would like to take what remaining time we have in order to discuss the Paul amendment. I would like to begin by asking unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from retired military leaders urging opposition to the Paul amendment.

Mr. President, I do not think that our military leaders, retired and Active Duty, are infallible, but I think their views are very important given the vast experience so many of them on this list have. These are 110 retired three- and four-star generals and admirals. I think we should at least pay close attention to their views. They have earned it. They have earned our respect for their views.

In addition, I ask unanimous consent to have a letter from AIPAC printed in the Record.

This letter is from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, America's pro-Israel lobby. It is a letter addressed to majority leader Harry Reid and minority leader Mitch McConnell.

All of us here are very familiar with AIPAC. It is a very well respected and highly regarded organization that is really responsible for informing us, for strengthening our ties between the United States and Israel, and I hope my colleagues will take this very strong letter of AIPAC into consideration.

There are so many things wrong with the Rand Paul amendment that it is hard to know where to begin. I would like to mention--because I know my colleague who plays a role on the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee wants to join in, I do not want to take too much time. I wish to mention two countries--Libya to start with.

Somehow to labor under the belief that the Libyan people are opponents of the United States of America is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Libyans and the Libyan people. They are grateful. They are grateful to the United States of America. They have condemned this attack and this heinous crime of the assassination of four brave Americans. They have said they will do everything in their power to bring these people to justice.

I was there on July 7 in Tripoli. I saw thousands of Libyans saying: Thank you, America. Thank you, United States. Thank you, Ambassador Stevens. Thank you. Because they were under the yoke of one of the most brutal dictators on the Earth, who, by the way, was responsible for the deaths of Americans on Pan Am 103 and the bombing of the disco in Berlin.

But there is a problem in this country. They have porous borders. They have militias running around. They have not had a government of their own in forever, literally. And they need our help. They need our help in providing border security, in bringing these militias under control and these weapons that have proliferated everywhere.

So our message with the Paul amendment is this: Adios. See you around.

That is not America's role in Libya. That is not America's role in the world. And nothing would be more welcomed in Libya today by the Islamists and al-Qaida who are there and other extremists--nothing would make them happier than to hear that the United States had cut off all assistance to Libya. Nothing would encourage them more. Nothing would allow them to gain more traction and support from the Libyan people.

This is a fight for the hearts and souls of the people of the Middle East. It is not a video--it is not a video that has caused this problem and these riots and demonstrations. It is the efforts of the Islamists who magnify and spread an obscure video throughout the Arab world to stoke the fears and anger of the people of these countries when the fact is that it is a struggle for power. That is what is going on with these videos--a struggle for power.

So we are going to send a message to the Libyan people who lost thousands of their citizens in this recent struggle to oust Qadhafi from their country.

The second country I wish to mention very quickly is Egypt. Many of us are disappointed at some of the actions the Egyptians have taken. I will say that President Mursi condemned these attacks. He went to Tehran and condemned Bashar al-Asad. But in my view, Egypt is pretty much up for grabs. I don't how the Egyptians are going to go. There is a struggle internally between the Salafists and the extremists and those who want a modern and democratic society, and that struggle will continue.

But I would also remind my colleagues that one of the signal agreements of our time was the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement that was consummated at Camp David by President Carter, Anwar Sadat, and Menachem Begin. This was a major step forward--peace between Egypt and Israel. Part of that deal was that the United States would provide aid to Egypt.

How are the Egyptians going to react if we cut off aid to them? I can tell you how they will react. They will react that we have breached an agreement that has gone on for a long time. And, believe me, Egypt and Israel's relations are vital in the Middle East. And, again, what would prove a better message to the extremists than to be able to tell their people: Not only do the American people dislike us, not only are they not in support of us, but they will not assist us and other countries.

There are many other examples. I believe the role of the United States in the world is important, and I believe also, as I mention as a footnote, that this debate has been going on all of the 20th century, now into the 21st century. Those who are isolationists, who want to fortress America--you can go back to post-World War I and the fight over the League of Nations and, prior to World War II, the isolationists, the Henry Fords, the Charles Lindberghs, the isolationists prior to World War II, past World War II, the Taft wing of the Republican Party and the Eisenhower wing, all the way up until this fight that will probably continue, and history will show that the greatest Nation in history was the United States of America, which, following World War II, restored Europe, turned back the tide of communism, and has been able, all over the world, with no greed, no selfish interest except for democracy and freedom, to aid these countries, which eventually redounds to the favor of the United States of America.

I urge, obviously, rejection of the Rand Paul amendment.

Mr. President, in the last few days several interesting things have happened, and some of them tragic--of course, beginning with the tragic loss of our brave four Americans and Ambassador Chris Stevens, then the demonstrations that have taken place everywhere. But I also remind my colleagues there was a most sophisticated attack on one of the most heavily fortified installations in Iraq. It was professional. It was carried out in a professional fashion. It resulted in $200 million worth of loss to the American taxpayer, the greatest single act of destruction since the Tet Offensive back during the Vietnam war.

In Afghanistan, because of the attacks of Afghan soldiers on American soldiers, we have had to suspend the operations between the military and police between the two countries. If there was ever an indicator of failure of our policy in Afghanistan, it is our now inability to even train with them to be ready to take over the responsibilities that we now hold.

There is no greater indication of the failure of the President of the United States to continue to tell the American people and the people of the world not that we need to succeed, not that we need to win, but that we need to withdraw. So countries in the region have taken the lesson and are making accommodations.

The fact is we are now facing a collapsed national security policy in the region, beginning of course with the assertion by the ambassador of the United Nations that what happened with Christopher Stevens and the three others was ``spontaneous'' and the President's spokesperson saying the same thing.

We knew it wasn't spontaneous. We know people don't bring heavy weapons and mortars and rocket-propelled grenades to demonstrations spontaneously. This was a well-orchestrated, well-planned, well- executed act of murder of four brave Americans. Now we blame it on the video; it is the video.

It is not the video. The video is the vehicle of radical Islamists that they use. And don't think there will not be other vehicles. There are people now, I am sure, all over the world who are making videos that Muslims may find offensive. I found it offensive when there was a picture--that I will not even describe now--back some years ago that was sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts. And we believe in freedom of speech. The first thing we should have said is Americans cherish and have fought for these freedoms, including freedom of speech.

Very briefly, because I know my colleagues want to talk, we have totally failed in Iraq. Today, as we speak, Iranian aircraft are overflying Iraq to Syria and delivering weapons to Bashar Assad. We were supposed to leave a residual force there. We didn't because then- Senator Obama, who said the surge would fail--where he was completely wrong--now has said he is now celebrating that we are out of Iraq.

They just sentenced their Vice President to death. The tensions between Sunni, Shia, and Kurd have never been greater, and al-Qaida is on the rise in Iraq. In the words of General Keane, the architect of the surge, we won the war and we have lost the peace.

In Syria, 25,000 people have now been massacred. When is the last time the President of the United States stood and spoke on behalf of these people? It is impossible for me to understand why the President of the United States wouldn't at least speak out against the murder, rape, and torture that is going on, and continues to go on, and it is an unfair fight with Bashar Assad supplied with Russian weapons, Iranians on the ground--which they have acknowledged. Of course, every day that goes by more and more al-Qaida infiltrate the country.

In Afghanistan, of course they know we are leaving. Of course they are accommodating. There is a famous story of the Taliban prisoner and the American officer. The Taliban prisoner says: You have the watches; we have the time.

America is believed to be on the decline and weakening. So Mitt Romney was right. The statement issued by the Embassy in Cairo was a semi-apology, which later the administration itself repudiated.

This President does not believe in American exceptionalism, he does not believe in American leadership, and we have just paid a very heavy price for our lack of leadership. Leading from behind is not the role of America in the world, and appropriate lessons are being drawn from that all over the world.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Whose time is being----

Mr. President, I hope all of my colleagues will take note that AIPAC disagrees with the view of the Senator from Kentucky about the effect this legislation may have on aid to Israel.

Every Member of Congress and all Americans should know what happened today in Benghazi, Libya. The reports are that as many as 30,000 Libyans took to the streets in Benghazi, the city in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his colleagues were tragically murdered 10 days ago. These demonstrators marched peacefully to the gates of the compound of Ansar al-Sharia, the militia that was responsible for the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues. The demonstrators conducted themselves peacefully. According to media reports, they carried signs that read ``The Ambassador was Libya's friend'' and ``No, no to militias.'' When these brave Libyans arrived at the gates of the compound, they told the militia that they and their violent, extremist agenda are not welcome in the new Libya. Do we want to send a message tonight, after the people of Libya told the militants no, that we don't want to have anything to do with them, we won't assist them, we won't give them what they need to establish a democratic and free society?

Because of what happened in Benghazi today, somewhere Chris Stevens is smiling. He is smiling because this is the real Libya, the Libya he knew and loved so well. This is the Libya he wanted America to support and remain engaged with, the Libya of which he ultimately gave his life. These brave people in Libya are friends of America's. They want our help, and they need our help. We must continue to provide it to them, which is exactly what Chris Stevens would have wanted.

If the Senate were to cut off all U.S. assistance to Libya now, as this amendment before us would do, it would abandon our friends to our terrorist enemies and destroy America's moral standing in the world and do egregious harm to our national interests.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor GEN Norton A. Schwartz. General Schwartz will soon officially retire after 39 years as an Air Force officer, the last 4 spent as Chief of Staff. Throughout his career, on the front lines and in the ``corporate'' Air Force, General Schwartz served our Nation selflessly and ably, with dedication and distinction.

I came to know General Schwartz when he was appointed Chief of Staff of the Air Force in August 2008. He began his leadership at a very difficult time. Controversy surrounded the Air Force's acquisition activities and the control of our Nation's nuclear arsenal. The Air Force's attempt to acquire aerial refueling tanker aircraft had been mired in scandal and missteps, while the service had just come off two incidents of mishandling nuclear missiles and related materials.

General Schwartz established a command climate that helped the service make the changes needed to address these issues. For example, General Schwartz insisted on fully restoring excellence and integrity to the Air Force's acquisition workforce and practices. He succeeded. After years of failed attempts to get the tanker replacement program under contract, the Air Force conducted a source-selection for the program, under full-and-open competition, that serves as a textbook example of how the Department of Defense should award contracts for its largest and most expensive weapon systems. Today, the Air Force's strategy to acquire these tankers is sound. It can certainly be said that under General Schwartz's leadership, this program is, for the first time in its checkered history, well-positioned for success.

Through his thoughtful temperament and purposeful humility, General Schwartz also helped restore Congress's confidence in the Air Force's acquisition practices and its management of the critical national security resources entrusted to it. For this, both the warfighter and the taxpayer will remain in his debt.

During public hearings before the Armed Services Committee and in our private meetings, I always appreciated General Schwartz's ``straight talk'' about Air Force programs and operations. Despite his unwavering dedication to the Air Force, General Schwartz was never afraid to talk about the hard truths, to propose solutions to problems, and to see those solutions through. Neither was he shy about lauding the many excellent people and accomplishments of the Air Force.

So I extend a grateful nation's thanks to GEN Norton A. Schwartz and his wife Suzie for their service to our Nation and wish them every success in the next chapter in their life together.

Mr. President, last night I came to the floor to object to a 1-hour debate on a measure that would have had Draconian effects on our relations with countries in the Middle East. I am not opposed to that measure or debating it. But I said I would think it would be important to have an amendment. The majority leader of the Senate said: The day of amendments here is over. The majority leader of the Senate said: The day of amendments in this body is over.

Is there a more telling description of how this body has deteriorated and degenerated over the years?

I see my friend from Maine here. It is a far cry from the day we first came, when other majority leaders would allow debate, amendments, and carry out the functions the people ask us to, and that is with vigorous debate and discussion. The day of amendments in this body is over.

So as we debated a bill for veterans jobs programs, of which six are already existing, the majority leader, for the first time in 50 years-- for the first time in 50 years in this body--we are not taking up the Defense authorization bill. We are in a war. We continue to have attacks on American citizens. America's national security is at risk. And we cannot even do enough for the men and women who are serving to pass legislation that is so vital to their future and their ability to defend this Nation? Shameful.