Floor Statements

Reserving the right to object, the unanimous consent request of the majority leader is that we have 60 minutes, equally divided, in a vote on the Rand amendment. Is that part of the unanimous consent?

I would hope the majority leader would have some understanding that we are talking about cutting off aid to several countries that are allies which could have an incredible effect on the entire Middle East. The majority leader wants to have 60 minutes, equally divided, on a measure that, if passed, would have the most Draconian effects on the entire Middle East, a part of the world that is in turmoil now. The majority leader wants to have 60 minutes, equally divided, and with no amendments, obviously, as it is the majority leader's practice not to allow any amendments. I may want to have a side-by-side. This is an issue of the utmost gravity and the utmost importance and the majority leader wants to have an hour, equally divided.

It is absolutely mind-boggling, and I think if we are going to cut off all aid to several of our allies, including the Camp David agreements which call for aid to Egypt, including an ally in the region called Libya where we just lost our brave Ambassador--and the majority leader wants to have 60 minutes equally divided and with no one allowed to have any amendments, second degree, side-by-side, and then says Republicans are at fault?

I say to the majority leader, I have watched this Senate deteriorate in a way that is almost spectacular. Here we are on the day before the majority leader wants us to go out of session, and we are supposed to just have a vote on an amendment that has the most profound effect on this Nation's security, with 60 minutes equally divided.

I don't have a smile on my face, I tell the majority leader. I have a look of incredulous dismay and disgust.

Mr. President, would the majority leader yield?

Mr. President, I am not against the Rand Paul amendment being voted on by the Senate. I do object to an hour equally divided. I object to the fact that we do not have either side-by-side or second- degree amendments, which is the normal parliamentary procedure.

Since the majority leader had to inject the ``No. 1 objective is defeat Barack Obama'' routine again, I would like to point out this is the least productive Congress since 1947; that for the first time in 51 years we are not taking up the Defense authorization bill; for the first time in 51 years, when we are fighting a war in Afghanistan, that we can't find the time in the Senate to take up the bill that is so important to the security of this Nation.

So the majority leader shouldn't be proud of his record, as he mentioned, including the fact that this Congress is the least productive since 1947. But most of all, in 50 years--in 50 years--we have not taken up the Defense authorization bill that we have taken up for 50 years because other majority leaders who set the calendar have understood its importance to the men and women who are serving in the military and our national security.

I again urge that instead of this back-and-forth and mutual objections and nothing getting done around here--I know and the majority leader knows we could take up the Defense authorization bill and get it done in a matter

of a few days, and we could have since June. But instead we do this back-and-forth, which makes us the least productive Congress since 1947, with an approval rating by the American people that deservedly is in the single digits.

So I repeat: I would be glad to enter into a unanimous consent agreement on the Rand amendment, although I would also tell the majority leader that we may now be establishing a precedent that one Senator can hold up the entire Senate until that Senator gets the vote he is demanding.

I could hold up the Senate and demand a vote on the National Defense Authorization Act, which was reported to this body in June. Senator Kyl could hold this body hostage for a vote because of the various pieces of legislation they have. I am not doing that, but I am saying when we are looking at an issue as serious to this Nation's security as cutting off all aid in one fell swoop without even amending, or with an hour of discussion, I think it is almost incredible that we would consider such a parliamentary procedure when we are talking about what is at stake.

So I hope we can work out an agreement. I don't feel like staying here this weekend either, but I also have some concern about the safety and security of the men and women who are serving in our diplomatic corps overseas because if that amendment did pass, I guarantee you, you would see a reaction in these countries if we announce arbitrarily that we are cutting off all aid to them.

So I think we ought to understand the consequences of the Rand amendment, and it probably would take more than an hour equally divided.

I thank the majority leader for listening.

I believe it is not Senator Paul who sets the parameters for how many hours of debate and amendments and others; I believe it is the majority leader. Could I talk to the majority leader about how long the debate should be or whether we can have amendments? That is all I am saying.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be included in the colloquy with the Senator from South Dakota, the Senator from Alabama, and, naturally, the Senator from New Hampshire as well.

Mr. President, I think the Senator from South Dakota has laid out the problem. One of the regrets that I think all of us have is the failure of this message to get to the American people: the loss of 1 million defense jobs, $1 trillion taken out of our economy, the devastation to our national security that has been so graphically described by our Secretary of Defense and our uniformed chiefs. And still I think most Americans do not understand how the word ``sequestration'' applies in this particular situation. Now, maybe when this report--thanks to the legislation sponsored by the Senator from South Dakota--comes out as to the effects, it will give more visibility to the train wreck we are facing. It is a train wreck.

I would like to remind my colleagues again that the President cut $78 billion from defense in 2011. The budget request this year cut an additional $487 billion over the next decade, and this is another approximately $480 billion in addition to that. That is why our uniformed service chiefs say they will not be able to carry out their missions if this sequestration takes place.

And the President of the United States, whose title is ``Commander in Chief,'' has said, as far as I know, one, that he wants us to agree to tax increases. There have been some comments he has made about, well, after the election, maybe we will sit down. That is not the job of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces whose No. 1 priority is this Nation's security. The job of the President of the United States is to prevent the catastrophic consequence of sequestration on our Nation's national security.

I stand ready--and I know my colleagues do--I stand ready to go over to the White House and sit down with the President of the United States and say: How can we avert this catastrophe for our Nation's defense? What is the answer? Well, as soon as the Republicans agree to tax increases, or, after the election, maybe we can sit down. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has to plan. They have to plan on what their budget is, on what their capabilities are going to be, what their acquisitions are going to be, how we are going to pay, make sure the pay and benefits of our men and woman who are serving are kept up.

I will yield to my friend from Alabama in just a second, but this is really an incredibly frustrating situation. We are not going to take up the Defense authorization bill anytime soon. We are going through a veterans jobs act that never had a hearing, sponsored by a person who is not a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. There are six veterans jobs programs already in being today. Then I read in some of these periodicals that we are going to take up a bill from the Senator from Montana concerning some kind of hunting deal.

Meanwhile, the Senate refuses to take up the National Defense Authorization Act, which has to do with defending this Nation. What is the role of the President of the United States on this issue? I ask my colleagues, are we, for the first time in 50 years--the first time in 50 years--not going to pass and send to the President's desk for signature a defense authorization bill? Instead, we will go back and forth filing cloture and arguing on amendments and on which will be allowed or not allowed, fill up the tree, blah, blah, blah. Yet the majority leader of the Senate cannot take up the national defense authorization bill, the most important piece of legislation this body considers, and it may be that we do not take it up for the first time in 50 years.

We must address the issue of sequestration. I again commit to making compromises, to doing things I otherwise would not agree to, because we cannot allow this train wreck that will endanger the lives of our citizens to take place. Do not take my word for it. Take the word of the Secretary of Defense appointed by the President of the United States and our uniformed chiefs appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate that this is a devastating challenge to our national security. We just found out in the last couple of days that the world we live in is a very dangerous one.

I thank my colleagues for their involvement.

I yield to the Senator from Alabama.

May I ask the Senator from New Hampshire, is it not true we went to her State and met with a major defense industry in the State of New Hampshire that employs thousands of people?

What do they say?

Could I ask the Senator from Alabama, is it not true, if these cuts are enacted in the fashion they are designed right now, we are going to have a serious impact on our economy, to the point where it could result in even negative growth, according to objective studies?

Wouldn't that also be true if a defense contractor today literally has no ability to make plans for what their company or corporation would be expected to do on January 1 of 2013?

Isn't that known as chutzpah--to come down and attack the other body's budget when we haven't done a budget for 3 years, which is required by law?

I have to hand it to them--I have to hand it to them. I congratulate my friends on the other side of the aisle who come down and attack the other body's budget when they haven't done one in 3 years. Congratulations for new levels of hypocrisy.

Yes, the President did have a budget. It got zero votes. Not a single Member on the other side of the aisle voted for their own President's budget. Yet they will come down and attack a budget proposal which, by the way, puts us on a path to a balanced budget, and there is certainly no proposal I have ever seen coming from the other side. In fact, the answer, according to them, is spend more money--

spend more money. Let's have more of everything. Obviously, that has not been a very successful approach over the last 3\1/2\ years.

Again, I don't mean to be too repetitive, but here we are and what are we debating--a jobs bill. It sounds great. It sounds great: a veterans jobs bill. What could be better or more important? We have six veterans jobs programs that haven't succeeded. The fact is we are not addressing the needs of the men and women in the military who will be veterans someday. We are not providing them with the equipment, the training, and the wherewithal to defend this Nation by both ignoring sequestration and not taking up the National Defense Authorization Act.

My friends, I think the American people see through this charade we are conducting in these last few days before we go out to campaign and see if we can find and meet any Americans who are still in that 11 percent who say they still approve of Congress.

I totally agree.

Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. What is the parliamentary situation as it exists?

Is the pending legislation open for amendment?

How long has the Senate been on the motion to proceed?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Defense Authorization

I was just glancing through the often-read calendar of business here that we chop down a lot of trees to provide on every Senator's desk on a daily basis. It is the Calendar of Business for Thursday, September 13. On page 58, for order No. 419, is S. 3254, by Mr. Levin, ``a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.'' This was reported and placed on the calendar on June 4, 2012. So for nearly 4 months we have had the Defense authorization bill pending on the legislative calendar.

Meanwhile, we have been taken up with other important items, such as the one we are considering now, one that praises, as we all do, our veterans, with efforts for our veterans to obtain jobs. We already have six veterans job-training programs, but, what the heck, let's have another one.

Meanwhile, the men and women who are serving in the military, who will be veterans, are not having authorized the equipment, the training, the programs, the health care, family support systems for military families, for example, strengthening training, oversight, and the prevention of military sexual assault, ensuring that reductions in military personnel are matched with comparable savings in civilian personnel and contractors over the next 5 years, without sacrificing mission-critical capabilities. It authorizes $135 billion for military personnel, for the men and women who are serving today, including the cost of pay allowances, bonuses, and a 1.7-percent much-deserved, across-the-board pay raise for all members of the uniformed armed services. It also includes nearly $1 billion in unemployment benefits for members who leave military service and cannot find civilian jobs. It authorizes all our major weapons systems and every piece of equipment large or small that the Department of Defense needs and the men and women need who are still fighting in a war.

We found out in the last day or so that we still live in an extremely dangerous world. It authorizes $525 billion for the Defense Department, $88 billion for operations in Afghanistan and around the world, and $17.8 billion to maintain our nuclear deterrent. I think we have just seen with the tragic death of our Ambassador that al-Qaida and other extremist organizations are making a comeback in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan; certainly extremists were present in Libya in the tragic death of four Americans.

This legislation enhances the capabilities of our military and partners to counter and ultimately defeat al-Qaida and its regional affiliates which remain intent on attacking the United States and our interests.

But there is an issue that all of us are concerned about, cyber warfare, those attacks that we know are coming sooner or later. This legislation improves the ability of our Armed Forces to counter nontraditional threats focusing on terrorism cyber warfare and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

I could go on and on about the importance of this legislation which has been before this body for 4 months. And what has the Democratic leader of this Senate done? We are about to go out of session next week without addressing the most important responsibility of this Senate and their elected representatives which is our Nation's defense.

In the meantime, when we take up bills, the majority leader ``fills up the tree.'' A lot of people do not know what that means. That means we cannot have an amendment. Then we vote and we drop that particular piece of legislation. Then the next week we will take up a piece of legislation that somehow will enhance the majority leader's ability to maintain his position as majority leader, certainly not believing that that legislation will actually be passed by the Senate.

Every year for 51 years the Senate has passed the Defense authorization bill, it has gone to conference and been signed by the President of the United States. The majority leader of the Senate and the Members on the other side of this body have been derelict in their duties, and we are about for the first time in 50 years not to authorize what the men and women who are putting their lives on the line for us every single day need very badly.

You know, sometimes my colleagues wonder why the American people hold us in such low esteem. If we cannot enact legislation that has us carry out our most important duties as representatives of the people, including the men and women in the military, then I am surprised that so many Americans still approve of the way Congress operates.

What have we watched here on the floor of the Senate for the last 4 months since this bill was put on the calendar and could have been taken up, debated and passed by the Senate as we have every year for 50 years? The majority leader of the Senate has refused to bring this bill before the body for debate, discussion, amendment and passage, our most solemn responsibility.

All I can say is, shame, shame, shame that we have not fulfilled the responsibilities to the men and women who are sacrificing their very lives on our behalf, a failure of colossal proportions. All I can say is I believe that the American people are aware, and I believe the American people deserve a lot better than they are getting from this body.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons.) The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.

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 engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and Senator Graham from South Carolina.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to speak about the horrific attack yesterday on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed four American citizens. The two confirmed thus far to be among the dead are Sean Smith, an Air Force veteran turned State Department information management officer, and Ambassador Chris Stevens, one of America's finest and bravest Foreign Service officers.

I did not know Sean Smith--I know he was a great American who served his country--but I had gotten to know Chris Stevens quite well. In Ambassador Chris Stevens' death, the Libyan people have lost a great champion and believer in the peaceful aspirations of their democratic revolution; the American people have lost a selfless and dedicated servant of our interests and our values, and I have lost a friend.

My thoughts and prayers today are with Chris's family and the loved ones of his fallen colleagues. May God grant them comfort in their time of grief.

Our most urgent order of business now is to make sure our citizens still living and serving in Libya and Egypt and elsewhere across the region and the world are safe. Americans look to the governments in Libya and Egypt and elsewhere to meet their responsibilities in this regard. We also look to the Libyan Government to ensure that

those responsible for yesterday's attack in Benghazi are swiftly brought to justice. In all of these critical tasks, we are confident that our government will provide all necessary assistance and support.

Yesterday's attacks are an important reminder that so many of America's civilians and diplomats and development professionals are risking everything--everything--to advance our Nation's interests and values abroad. We must do everything in our power to ensure their security.

At the same time, our thoughts turn to broader concerns: the mourning of our fallen friends, and how we as a Nation should respond to these tragic events.

One of my most memorable meetings with Chris Stevens was last April in Benghazi. As U.S. Envoy to the Libyan opposition, Chris had traveled to Benghazi at great personal risk to represent the country he loved so much while Libya was still gripped in a brutal fight for freedom. It was clear there was nowhere that Chris would rather have been than Libya. We spent the day together, meeting Libyan opposition leaders and many ordinary citizens, who spoke movingly about how much the opportunity to finally live in freedom meant to them, and how grateful they were for America's support. Chris Stevens embodied that support, and his passion for his mission was infectious.

I kept in touch with him often and frequently after my visit. I was very happy when President Obama nominated him to be America's Ambassador to the new Libya. The last time I saw Chris Stevens was shortly after he had taken his post, during my most recent visit to Tripoli. I especially remember the lighter moments we spent together, including when Chris insisted on personally making me a cappuccino, a task that he carried out with as much pride and proficiency as his diplomatic mission.

That was on the morning of July 7--the day Libyans voted in their first election in half a century. Chris Stevens and I spent the day together again, traveling around Tripoli, visiting polling places, and speaking with Libyan voters. We met a man whose father had been murdered by Qadhafi's henchmen. We met a woman whose brothers had recently given their lives fighting for their country's liberation. We met countless others, including many older Libyans, who were voting for the first time in their lives. And everywhere we went, we were greeted by crowds of cheering Libyans, bursting with pride and eager to shake our hands and express their gratitude for America's support. It was one of the most moving experiences of my life, and it was only made better by the fact that I got to share it with our outstanding Ambassador, Chris Stevens.

What we saw together on that day was the real Libya--the peaceful desire of millions of people to live in freedom and democracy, the immense gratitude they felt for America's support for them, and their strong desire to build a new partnership between our nations. That is why I am not surprised that senior Libyan leaders were among the first to condemn the horrific attack that killed Chris and his colleagues. And that is why I was not surprised to learn from our Secretary of State that many Libyans fought to defend our people and our consulate in Benghazi when they came under attack, that some were wounded while doing so, and that it was Libyans who sought to get Chris and his colleagues to the hospital. And that is why we cannot afford to view the despicable acts of violence perpetrated yesterday by a small group of fanatics as in any way representative of the country and the people of Libya. That is not the real Libya, the Libya Chris Stevens knew and learned to love so well.

After such a heartbreaking loss for our Nation, I know many Americans are asking whether the United States was naive or mistaken to support the vast movement for change that is known as the Arab spring. I know many Americans may feel a temptation, especially with so many domestic and economic challenges facing us here at home, to distance ourselves from people and events in Libya and Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East. We cannot afford to go down that path.

Yesterday's attack in Benghazi was the work of a small group of violent extremists, whose goals and actions could not be more at odds with those of the people and government of Libya. The Libyan revolution began peacefully and was dedicated throughout to the ideals of freedom and justice and democratic change. When Libyans turned out by the millions to elect a new government in July, they gave the plurality of their vote not to religious fanatics but to a political party led by a moderate technocrat and committed to friendship with the United States.

Libyans arose last year to free themselves from exactly the kinds of murderers and terrorists who killed our American citizens yesterday in Benghazi. Their enemies are our enemies, and they remain as committed as ever to imposing their evil ideology through violence on people in Libya and the Middle East, and ultimately on us. They want to hijack the Arab spring for their own insidious purposes. If we turn our backs now on the millions of people in Libya and Egypt and Syria and other countries across the Middle East--people who share so many of our values and interests, people who are the true authors of the Arab spring--we will hand our common enemies--the terrorists and extremists--the very victory they seek.

We were right to take the side of the Libyan people and others in the region who share their peaceful aspirations. We would be gravely mistaken to walk away from them now. To do so would not only be a betrayal of everything Chris Stevens and his colleagues believed in and ultimately gave their lives for, it would be a betrayal of America's highest values and our own enduring national interest in supporting people in the Middle East and the world who want to live in peace and freedom.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my friend from Connecticut. I know he shares with me the sorrow that we and all Americans feel at the loss of a brave and dedicated American. But it will be a long time before we forget Chris Stevens because he will stand as a shining example of patriotism and love of country.

Chris Stevens was not unaware of the danger he faced. He was privy to intelligence information, and others. But he went forward and did his job with a smile, with love of his country, and love of the country where he was serving. I cannot be more proud of Ambassador Chris Stevens.

I thank my friend for his eloquent words. I would also like to again emphasize that there were four brave Americans--four. Sean Smith was one of them, a truly great American. There are two others--we do not even know their identity. So I hope the families who have suffered this loss appreciate that we grieve for all. We had the opportunity of knowing Chris Stevens. I did meet Sean Smith and the others. We mourn for them, and we thank them for their service to this Nation.

I ask my friend from Connecticut, wouldn't the worst legacy of Chris Stevens' service to this country be a movement of the United States to withdraw, to fortress America, to renounce our service to the world in helping these countries achieve the same democracy and freedom for which our forefathers strived? I do not mean to use his death as any kind of political agenda, but I remember him well enough to know that the worst outcome of this tragedy would be for the United States to withdraw. In fact, I am confident that if he were here, he would be urging us to get right back in, bring these extremists to justice, and press on with the democracy and freedom the people of Libya deserve and have earned at great loss of blood and treasure.

I wish to say in conclusion that I thank my old and dear friend from Connecticut and the Senator from South Carolina.

Finally, I would share with my colleagues that on last July 7 I was in Tripoli with Chris Stevens and it was the first free and fair election the Libyan people ever experienced. As we went from polling place to polling place, we met people who had lost brothers, husbands, fathers, mothers, and sisters at the hands of one of the more brutal butchers who has ever been on Earth, Muammar Qadhafi.

That night we went to the square, where some 200,000 people were driving around, honking horns, celebrating, and waving Libyan flags. It was a really auspicious start. And as Senator Lieberman pointed out, it was a moderate group who were elected to govern Libya by the people of Libya. Chris Stevens was recognized by all of them. They knew Chris Stevens and they knew what he represented--the United States of America.

So those are memories I will never forget, and I hope his family will appreciate the magnificent service he provided to this Nation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I see the majority leader wants to speak, but my question is, isn't it true that there has been a series of meetings including the sponsors of the bill, those of us who believed significant modifications needed to be made, and large numbers of Senators have at least tentatively come to some agreement that we think could move this legislation forward in a fashion that recognizes the importance of the issue and yet dramatically, in our view, improves the legislation? I hope the Republican leader and majority leader would not interpret this vote--which clearly cloture will not be invoked--as an impediment to the process that I think was moving on a path where we could have reached some agreement and addressed this issue and this legislation conclusively.

Well, Mr. President, I want to again thank Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins for their willingness to negotiate seriously. I want to thank also Senator Chambliss as well as Senator Hutchison and many others, Senator Kyl and others.

We have had large meetings, small meetings, medium-sized meetings. We have had discussions among various groups. I believe we sort of had the outlines of a framework that we could have had a certain number of amendments that we all agreed to that would be voted on. At the same time, we could prevail upon some of our colleagues not to have nongermane amendments.

Unfortunately, the first amendment proposed by the majority leader has to do with tax cuts. Look, I say to my colleagues that I think we have developed a framework where we can move forward with a certain number of germane amendments. All of us appreciate how important this issue is.

I don't see the need for this vote. Cloture will not be invoked. All it will do is embed people in their previously held positions. What we should be

doing is continuing productive negotiations and discussions that we had all during yesterday, put off this cloture vote, and try to come to some agreement in recognition that cyber security is a vital national security issue. We all recognize that. We started out very much poles apart. I think there have been some agreements made which I view as significant progress.

I regret, I say to Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, and all my colleagues, that we are taking this vote when we should be spending our time--at least the rest of the day--setting up a framework that we can address cyber security during the first week we are back in September. But it is what it is.

I thank Senators Lieberman and Collins for their willingness to sit down and negotiate. We still have significant differences, but I think those could have been resolved. I hope this vote doesn't have a chilling effect on what I think was progress that was being made.

On issues of transparency and information sharing and others, there are still differences, but they have been narrowed. Again, I thank my colleagues for their hard work.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose cloture on the Cybersecurity Act of 2012.

Are any of us surprised that we find ourselves in this situation-- again? Is this the ``open amendment'' process we were all promised? As I said earlier this year, a bill as complex as cyber security legislation can only be achieved if it goes through the regular committee process. Had this bill been subjected to the proper committee process, instead of relying on Senate rule XIV, I believe we would have had a much stronger legislative product that would have attracted broader support. Instead, the blame game, which is the first sign of a stalled legislative process, is in full swing.

As of yesterday afternoon it was my understanding that we would continue to work throughout August to find a compromise on this legislation. As a backstop to prepare for the possibility that an agreement would not be reached during that time, we requested a tranche of 10 to 15 placeholder amendments be set aside to address a defined set of issue areas we had with the current bill. In exchange for these process concessions, our group was willing to support cloture.

The unfortunate reality is that we had time to conduct proper legislative hearings and hold committee markups. But rather than choose the customary process, which forces us to defend our points of view, build consensus around ideas and, admittedly, requires more planning and hard work, a less transparent approach was taken. That approach, while at the time may have seemed more legislatively convenient, resulted in hurried, last-minute negotiations that have been doomed from the outset. Rarely does anything good get accomplished under these circumstances, which lack transparency and scrutiny. This should serve as a warning to both sides of the aisle and future congresses that attempts to side-step the legislative process are risky, often unproductive, and do not bypass the criticism they seek to avoid.

And while all of us recognize the importance of cyber security, we should

not confuse opposition to this deeply flawed bill as a sign of somehow being unwilling to address the issue. It has been my experience that when dealing with matters of national security and domestic policy, and in this bill is at the nexus of both, it is more important to work to get something done right than just work to get something done. And while both efforts may result in enough material to create a headline, only one fulfills our purpose for being here in this body.

Time and again, we have heard from experts about the importance of maximizing our Nation's ability to effectively prevent and respond to cyber threats. We have all listened to these accounts. This cyber threat and the risk of an attack only increased when the Stuxnet leaks began recklessly coming out of this administration. And while this threat and others persist, the most important piece of legislation which the congress can pass when it comes to ensuring our national security, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes cyber security elements, remains unfinished. This entire process feels more like a ploy to advance the fiction that we are focused on national security, while avoiding the fulfillment of one of the Congress's most important national security responsibilities--the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act.

The point is that debating a controversial and flawed bill--a bill of such `significance' that it has languished for over 5 months at the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, with no committee markup or normal committee process--should not have taken precedence over a bill which was vetted over a period of 4 months by the Senate Armed Services Committee and reported to the floor with the unanimous support of all 26 members. Unfortunately, our current trajectory will likely leave us without a cyber security bill or the National Defense Authorization Act.

As I have said time and time again, the threat we face in the cyber domain is among the most significant and challenging threats of 21st- century warfare. But this bill unfortunately takes us in the wrong direction and establishes a new national security precedent which fails to recognize the gravity of the threats we face in cyber space. I agree that we must take appropriate steps to ensure that civil liberties are protected and believe we could have appropriately done so without removing the only institutions capable of protecting the United States from a cyber attack from counties like China, Russia, and Iran--from the front lines. Making these entities more reliant on their less capable civilian counterparts is an unacceptable, precedent setting approach, which fails to recognize the unique real-time requirements for understanding the threat environment, anticipating attacks, and responding when necessary.

Additionally, what is not being discussed enough are the likely implications of the new cyber security stovepipes being proposed in this bill. The recreation of the very walls and information sharing barriers that the 9/11 Commission attributed as being responsible for one of our greatest intelligence failures is very unwise.

In addition to the problems with the information sharing provisions, the critical infrastructure language grants too much authority to the government, failing to consider the innovative potential of the private sector. I continue to believe that this title would force those who own or operate critical assets to place more emphasis on compliance attorneys, rather than utilize the world-class engineering capabilities employed by our private sector. This is why the primary objective of our bill is to enter into a cooperative information sharing relationship with the private sector, rather than an adversarial relationship rooted in mandates used to dictate technological solutions to industry.

The SECURE IT Act is a serious response to the growing cyber threat facing our country, and it is an alternative approach to the overly bureaucratic and regulatory bill before us. Our amendment seeks to utilize the world-class engineers employed by our private sector, not compliance attorneys in law firms. This is why the primary objective of our bill is to enter into a cooperative information-sharing relationship with the private sector, rather than an adversarial relationship rooted in mandates used to dictate technological solutions to industry.

The centerpiece of the SECURE IT Act continues to be a legal framework to provide for voluntary information sharing. Our amendment provides specific authorities relating to the voluntary sharing of cyber threat information among private entities and the government, and in doing so, we do not create any new bureaucracy. This bill at the very least deserved a vote.

As I stated earlier, it has been my experience that when dealing with matters of national security and domestic policy, it is more important to work to get something done right than just work to get something done. For these reasons, and because of the closed process put forth by the majority, we should all oppose cloture.

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

Mr. President, at this late hour of our session, until September, I think it is important we continue to pay attention to and be concerned about the situation in Syria. Today, Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, announced the failure of his mission. If there is anything about the conflict in Syria that did not surprise most of us, it is the fact that Kofi Annan's mission was a failure. It was doomed to failure from the beginning. It was based on the premise that somehow Bashar Assad would be motivated to stop the massacre of his people. It was motivated on the premise that somehow U.N. observers could come in and stand between the two fighting forces but totally ignore the fundamentals of this conflict.

The fundamentals of this conflict are simple: It is the Syrian people attempting to assert their God-given rights and throw off the yoke of a brutal and unconscionable dictator, and on the other side of the equation Bashar Assad's commitment to doing whatever is necessary, including massacring now as many as 20,000 of his own people in his desperate quest to remain in power in Syria.

Let's not forget that one of the reasons we have seen heavy Russian involvement in the form of supplies of arms and equipment and continued Russian veto of resolutions in the U.N. Security Council that would have imposed even the mildest sanctions on Bashar Assad is what seems to be some kind of nostalgia on President Putin's part for the old Russian empire and the maintenance of their one base on the Mediterranean port in Syria.

The Russians' behavior in this throughout, as they continue to block one resolution after another, of course, is revealing of the true nature of the Putin regime, the autocracy and kleptocracy that has now asserted its full power and weight in Russia. In addition to that, of course, we have the Chinese joining Russia in their sustaining of vetoes in the U.N. Security Council.

It is hard to overstate the damage these actions by Russia and China have done to them, but it is also hard to overstate the damage that has been done to the Syrian people, with Russian equipment being supplied constantly, Iranian boots on the ground helping to set up torture centers, and continued encouragement of Bashar Assad to remain in power.

I am not here to again critique this administration's abysmal record, but isn't it ludicrous--isn't it ludicrous--to base your entire policy toward Syria on the belief that somehow the Russians would convince Bashar Assad that he should leave Syria? Isn't it foolish to somehow base your policy and nonintervention on the belief that somehow the mission of a former Secretary General of the United Nations would succeed when it was clear the Syrian people were not going to be satisfied with the continuous barbarous regime of Bashar Assad, and certainly Bashar Assad was not going to give up?

It is clear through Iran's actions that its rulers are playing for keeps in Syria, and they will stop at nothing to prevent the fall of Bashar Assad. Why are the Iranians so committed and involved? The words of General Mattis, the Commander of U.S. Central Command, described it before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said that the fall of Bashar Assad would be ``the greatest blow to Iran in 25 years.''

So the United States does have more than a humanitarian interest in what

happens in Syria. In fact, if Bashar Assad falls, Syria loses its position as far as Lebanon is concerned, the Lebanese people have an opportunity to lose their client status of Syria, and Hezbollah absorbs a serious blow because they lose their patron in Syria.

So the fall of Bashar Assad is not only a victory for the force of democracy and freedom, but it would also mean a significant--a significant--advance in our interest in the region as our major concern today remains the Iranian continued development of nuclear weapons. The path they are on sooner or later may provoke an attack by either Israel and/or the United States of America.

I say that with some authority because the President of the United States, President Obama, has appropriately said it would be unacceptable for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

I have been, along with my friend Joe Lieberman, to a refugee camp in Turkey on the Syrian border. There have now been thousands and thousands of additional residents there who have had to flee the brutality of Bashar Assad inside Syria. I met young men who were freshly wounded. I met defectors from the Syrian Army who described how they are instructed--they are instructed and indoctrinated to rape, to murder, and to torture. I met individuals who have watched their children murdered before their very eyes, and I met a group of young women who had been gang raped.

I wish every American could have had the opportunity to see these people whose only reason--only reason--to rise up is because they want to achieve their God-given rights.

What is going on now in Syria is very important, because the longer the conflict drags out, the more jihadists and foreign fighters and extremists come into the fight.

Every day that goes by that Bashar al-Assad is in power is another day which will make it more difficult once he leaves--and he will leave, but the question is when--but how difficult it will be for Syria to knit their country back together and become a functioning democracy.

There is also a very serious issue of chemical weapons. It is well known, and for the first time recently, the Syrian government acknowledged that they have stores of chemical weapons. These chemical weapons pose a great threat in a very unstable region. There are various scenarios that we should be deeply concerned about. One of them is that if chemical weapons fall into the hands or shift to Hezbollah, what kind of a threat does that pose to Israel? I remind my colleagues that Hezbollah has committed to the extinction of the State of Israel, as has Iran.

So what happens with these chemical weapons is a very important issue. The more chaos and the more disorder and the more frustration and anger that is displayed on both sides, the more likely it is that these chemical weapons can fall into the wrong hands, and they are not located in one place.

So there is a great deal at stake. There is one thing I hope we could all agree on; that is, the longer it lasts, the greater the danger, the greater the chaos, the more killing, the more rapes, the more murders.

Today we have information that the President of the United States has made a decision--and I am not sure of the details because I only know the media reports, but the best way to describe, as I understand it is--to facilitate the flow of weapons to the Syrian resistance fighters. I don't know how that is done. I don't know how that is accomplished, but I do know this, that they also need a sanctuary. They need an area that is secure, the same way the Libyans needed Benghazi, so they can train, equip, and establish a government.

The resistance, as we all know, is fractured. The best way to join them together is to have a central council they can answer to and that can make sure the weapons go to the right place. That is a vital component that should happen sooner rather than later.

None of us seeks to put American boots on the ground for a whole lot of reasons. I know the American people are war-weary and focused on our own domestic challenges. Both of these sentiments are genuine and legitimate. But what has unfolded in Syria over the past 1\1/2\ years not only offends the conscience of our country, it also poses real and growing risk to our national security interests and to those of some of our closest allies.

I don't believe Bashar Assad can last, even under current conditions. But I do know for sure America's national security interests in Syria will remain long after Assad's fall. In many ways, they could become more precarious because of our inaction, because of the failure of the President of the United States to speak up for these people. Why doesn't the President of the United States speak up for them? I have never understood that.

Because of our inaction, the people who will inherit the country in Syria will remember that in their hour of greatest need, when the bravest among them were fighting and dying for their freedom in a grossly unfair fight, America stood idly by and refused to help.

As the sister of a fallen opposition fighter in Syria recently remarked, ``When we control Syria, we won't forget that you forgot about us.'' Millions of her fellow Syrians share that sentiment.

If we continue on this path of inaction, mass atrocities will continue to unfold in Aleppo and other places in Syria. We have the power to prevent this needless death and advance our strategic interests in the Middle East at the same time. If we don't, if we continue this shameful behavior, our failure of leadership will haunt us for a long period to come.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as Members depart Capitol Hill for August recess, wildfires will be raging across much of the Nation perhaps in their home States. Over 1.3 million acres have burned this summer, and historic drought conditions will continue to fan the flames. Last year, my home State of Arizona experienced the largest wildfire in State history, the Wallow Fire, which consumed over 500,000 acres. This year has been particularly distressing for States like Colorado, where the Waldo Canyon Fire near Colorado Springs forced the evacuation of thousands of residents, destroyed more than 350 homes, threatened the U.S. Air Force Academy, and became the most expensive fire in that State's history. Currently, there are 29 large uncontained wildfire burning across the Nation, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

Wildfires like these underscore the urgent need to start modernizing our antiquated Forest Service airtanker fleet. Airtankers are a vital tool capable of rapidly altering the paths of major fires and providing immediate protection to ground personnel. Many of the core aircraft operated by the Forest Service are Korean-era DC-3s and P-2Vs that are rapidly failing. Just last month, a P-2V built in 1962 crashed in Utah, tragically killing the pilot and co-pilot. These are but a few examples in long list of terrible accidents where worn out aircraft are being operated far beyond their intended service lives, the perfect recipe for future accidents.

That is why Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Mike Johanns, and I have introduced S. 3441, the Wildfire Suppression Aircraft Transfer Act of 2012. Our bill would transfer fourteen excess C-27J aircraft from the U.S. Air Force to the Forest Service to help recapitalize their airtanker fleet. These are nearly-new aircraft that will greatly enhance the mission flexibility and lifespan of the Forest Service fleet. This legislation is supported by the Forest Service as well as certain stakeholder groups like the International Association of Fire Chiefs.

My colleagues and I attempted to pass this legislation before the Senate adjourned for August recess. Regretfully, there are several members with an interest in keeping these aircraft operating who objected to our bill, even though the Pentagon wants to retire them. This is disappointing because our legislation would not interfere with the Congressional prerogative to approve or reject the Department of Defense force structure plan for Fiscal Year 2013. Clearly, there are differing opinions over divesting the C-27J, and I respect the right of Senators who want to address that issue in the context of the National Defense Authorization Act. Our legislation is intended as a post- divestment authority to ensure that that the C-27J is put to good use fighting wildfires instead of being mothballed. Over the August recess, I hope to work with the Members who have objected to S. 3441 because I believe these platforms can be utilized to save lives and property.

Madam President, I ask to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Lindsey Graham, and if he wants to, the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Coats.

Madam President, before I go to the issue we want to discuss, I want to point out in this debate that has become so impassioned that the issue of cyber security is one of transcendent importance, and I want to again reiterate my respect, appreciation, and affection for both Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins.

I also point out to my colleagues that the people who are directly affected by this--and that is the business community of the United States of America--are unalterably opposed to the legislation in its present form. They are the ones who will be affected most dramatically by cyber security legislation. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, has a strong letter which supports the legislation we have proposed.

I finally would just like to say that I have had hours and hours of meetings with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle trying to work this out. I believe we can work this out. We understand that cyber security is important and of transcendent importance. But to somehow allege that the business community, the 3 million businesses in America, should be left out of this discussion, of course, is not appropriate nor do I believe it will result in effective cyber security legislation.

National Security Leaks

I really came to the floor today to talk about the issue of the leaks, the leaks which have directly jeopardized America's national security. At the Aspen Security Forum, just in the last few days, the head of Special Operations Command, Admiral McRaven, observed that the recent national security leaks have put lives at risk and may ultimately cost America its lives unless there is an effective crackdown. Admiral McRaven, the head of our Special Operations Command said:

We need to do the best we can to clamp down because sooner

or later it is going to cost people their lives or it is

going to cost us our national security.

This is another national security issue, my friends, and I appreciate very much the fact that Governor Romney rightly referred to these leaks as contemptible and a betrayal of our national interests.

I wish to point out to my colleagues that, yes, there are supposedly investigations going on and, according to media, hundreds of people are being interviewed. Well, I am no lawyer. I am no prosecutor. Senator Graham may have some experience in that. But what about the 2009 G20 economic summit when, according to the New York Times journalist David Sanger, ``a senior official in the National Security Council'' tapped him on the shoulder and brought him to the Presidential suite in the Pittsburgh hotel where President Obama was staying and where ``most of the rest of the national security staff was present.'' There the journalist was allowed to review satellite images and other evidence that confirmed the existence of a secret nuclear site in Iran.

I wonder how many people have the key to the Presidential suite in that Pittsburgh, PA hotel? We might want to start there. Instead, we have two prosecutors, one of whom was a strong and great supporter of the President of the United States. And the same people--I am talking about the Vice President of the United States and others--who strongly supported a special counsel in the case of Valerie Plame and, of course, the Abramoff case. We need a special counsel to find out who was responsible for these leaks.

I ask my colleague Senator Graham if he has additional comments on this issue. It has receded somewhat in the

media, but the damage that has been done to our national security is significant. It has put lives at risk, and it has betrayed our allies. This is an issue we cannot let go away until those who are responsible are held accountable for these actions.

Could I ask my friend, isn't it also true that this individual had some 23 family members whose lives were also placed in danger because of the revelation of his identity?

Mr. President, before we turn to our friend from Illinois for his, I am sure, convincing explanation as to why a special counsel is not required, even though it was, in the opinion of his side, in a previous situation, I want to just, again--and the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from South Carolina will also corroborate the fact that we have been working and working, having meeting after meeting after meeting, on the issue of cyber security.

We believe we have narrowed it down to three or four differences that could be worked out over time. Among them is liability. Another one is information sharing. But I think it is also important for us to recognize in this debate the people who are most directly affected in many respects are the business communities, and it is important that we have the input and satisfy, at least to a significant degree, those concerns.

There are those who allege that a piece of legislation is better than no legislation. I have been around this town for a long time. I have seen bad legislation which is far worse than no legislation. So we understand certainly--I and members of the Armed Services Committee and others understand--the importance of this issue.

We also understand that those who are directly affected by it--those concerns need to be satisfied as well. I commit to my colleagues to continue nonstop rounds of meetings and discussions to try to get this issue resolved. To this moment, there are still significant differences.

I say to my friend from Illinois, I look forward to hearing his convincing discussion.

I thank the Senator and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois be involved in the colloquy.

No.

No. The Senator will object.

I would be glad to respond to my friend.

First of all, obviously, he is in disagreement with the chairperson of the Intelligence Committee because she said these leaks were the worst in the 11 years she has been a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. So, obviously, the Abramoff and the Valerie Plame investigations are not nearly as serious, and they certainly were not when we look at the incredible damage, according to Admiral McRaven, according to anyone who is an observer of the incredible damage these leaks have caused.

Again, the chairperson of the Intelligence Committee said it is the worst she has ever seen. Admiral McRaven, as I said, said these have put lives at risk and may ultimately cost Americans their lives.

I wonder if my colleague from Illinois is concerned when, according to his book, Mr. Sanger said: ``A senior official in the National Security Council'' tapped him on the shoulder and brought him to the Presidential suite in the Pittsburgh hotel where President Obama was staying, and--I am quoting from Mr. Sanger's book--where ``most of the rest of the national security staff was present.'' There, the journalist was apparently allowed to review satellite images and other ``evidence'' that confirmed the existence of a secret nuclear site in Iran.

When leaks take place around this town, the first question you have to ask is, Who benefits? Who benefits from them? Obviously someone who wants to take a journalist up to the presidential suite would make it pretty

easy for us to narrow down whom we should interview first. Who had the key to the presidential suite? Who uses the presidential suite in a hotel in Pittsburgh? These leaks are the most damaging that have taken place in my time in the Senate and before that in the U.S. military. Yes, six people have been prosecuted. Do you know at what level? A private. The lowest level people have been prosecuted by this administration. And this administration says they have to interview hundreds of people in the bottom-up process.

I can guarantee you one thing, I will tell the Senator from Illinois now, there will not be any definitive conclusion in the investigation before the election in November. That does not mean to me that they are not doing their job, although it is clear that one of these prosecutors was active in the Obama campaign, was a contributor to the Obama campaign. I am not saying that individual is not of the highest caliber. I am saying that would lead people to ask a reasonable question, and that is whether that individual is entirely objective.

Americans need an objective investigation by someone they can trust, just as then-Senator Biden and then-Senator Obama asked for in these previous incidents, which, in my view, were far less serious and, in the view of the chairperson of the Intelligence Committee, are far more severe than those that were previously investigated. I would be glad to have my colleague respond to that.

Absolutely.

I do not think it gets him off the hook. I think it has some significance as compared to this kind of egregious breach of security that has taken place at the highest level. We know that.

No. But my friend would obviously acknowledge that if it is a private or a corporal or something, it has not nearly the gravity it does when a person with whom the Nation has placed much higher responsibilities commits this kind of breach.

But no one has challenged Mr. Sanger's depiction. No one in the administration has challenged his assertion that he was taken by ``a senior official in the National Security Council to the presidential suite.'' No one has challenged that.

I say to my friend, it is not a matter of trust, it is a matter of credibility because if an administration has the same argument that then-Senator Biden used and Senator Obama used in opposition to the administration investigating the Abramoff case and the Valerie Plame case--they argued that it is not a matter of trust, it is a matter of credibility with the American people whether an administration can actually investigate itself or should there be a credible outside counsel who would conduct this investigation, which would then have the necessary credibility, I think, with the American people. I think that there is a certain logic to that, I hope my colleague would admit.

I am bringing you proof that this Attorney General has a significant credibility problem, and that problem is bred by a program called Fast and Furious where weapons were--under a program sponsored by the Justice Department----

Let me just finish my comment. A young American Border Patrol agent was murdered with weapons that were part of the Fast and Furious investigation. What has the Attorney General of the United States done? He has said that he will not come forward with any information that is requested by my colleagues in the House.

So I would have to say that, at least in the House of Representatives and with many Americans and certainly with the family of Brian Terry, who was murdered, there is a credibility problem with this Attorney General of the United States.

I am convinced of that.

Which, in my view, does not in any way impact the need for a full and complete investigation.

No. But what I am saying is that there is a significant credibility problem that the Attorney General of the United States has, at least with a majority of the House of Representatives----

On this issue, which then lends more weight to the argument, as there was in the case of Valerie Plame and Jack Abramoff, for the need for a special counsel.

Those two counsels report to whom? The Attorney General of the United States.

So I would think, just for purposes of credibility with the American people, that a special counsel would be called for by almost everyone.

Look, I understand the position of the Senator from Illinois. We have our colleagues waiting. I appreciate the fact that he is willing to discuss this issue. I think we have pretty well exhausted it.

Sure.

First of all, could I say that is just unfair. They are not claiming to be experts on cyber attacks. They are claiming that there are issues of liability, issues of information sharing, and other issues that they believe will inhibit their ability to engage in business practices and grow and prosper. So to say that somehow they claim they are experts on cyber security, they are not, but they are experts on how their businesses can best cooperate, share information, resist these attacks, and come together with other people and other interests to bring about some legislation on which we can all agree.

There are 3 million businesses and organizations that are represented here, I say to my colleague, so it seems to me that we should continue this conversation with them, particularly on issues of information sharing and liability. But to somehow say ``well, we talked to them, but we did not agree with anything they wanted to do'' is not fair to those 3 million businesses. We are making some progress. But please don't say they portray themselves as experts.

By the way, they hacked into my Presidential campaign, which shows they really were pretty bored and did not have a hell of a lot to do. But, anyway, go ahead.

Can I say to my colleague, first of all, to somehow infer that businesses in America are less interested in national security than they are in their own businesses is not, I think, a fair inference. But let me also say that what they want to do is be more efficient in the way they can do business.

For example, information sharing--as you know, there is a serious problem with liability if they are not given some kind of protections in the information sharing they would do with each other and with the Federal Government. So we want to make sure they have that security so that they will more cooperatively engage in the kind of information we need. That is a vital issue. That is still something on which we have a disagreement.

I have no doubt that the comments of the Senator from Illinois about how important this issue is are true. Nobody argues about that. But we have to get it right rather than get it wrong. The Senator from Illinois and I have been here a long time, and sometimes we have found out that we have passed legislation that has had adverse consequences rather than the positive ones we contemplated. By the way, I would throw Dodd-Frank in there. No company is too big to fail now. I would throw in some of the other legislation we have passed recently, which has not achieved the goals we sought.

That is why we need, in my view, more compromise and agreement. I believe we can reach it. I give great credit to both of our cosponsors of the bill, but please don't allege that this is ``bipartisan'' in any significant way. Most of the Republican Senators oppose the legislation in its present form. All Republican Senators understand the gravity of this situation and the necessity of acting.

It depends upon your definition of ``bipartisan.''

These institutions are not averse to government oversight. They are averse to legislation that harms their ability to share that information because if they face the threat of being taken into court for that, then obviously there is some reluctance. They also know how much has been lost because of the lack of cyber security to China and other countries. They are the ones who have been most directly affected. They are intelligent people, smart people, and they want this legislation to pass in a way that is the most effective way to enact legislation on this very serious issue.

I look forward to continuing the conversation with my friend from Illinois. I think both of us learn a bit from our conversations, and I thank him for his continued willingness to discuss the issue.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent to take 5 minutes in morning business and then speak on the pending legislation.

Mr. President, I would note that I saw my friend Senator Lieberman on the floor a second ago, and I know he joins with me in this statement.

I wish to take a few minutes to pay tribute to Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who ended his tour this week as the U.S. Chief of Mission in Kabul, Afghanistan.

As some of my colleagues may know, Ambassador Crocker's health has unfortunately been poor, so he is returning to receive some much needed care. But what my colleagues may not know is that Ambassador Crocker's health has been poor for some time and the people who care about him most--his family, his friends and colleagues in the Foreign Service, and our Secretary of State herself--told Ambassador Crocker long ago that he needed to leave his post and that he needed to get away from the long days and long nights of too much stress and not enough sleep. They told him to come home for his own sake.

Eventually, Ambassador Crocker relented, but still he was only going to leave on his own terms. He said that America asks the best of our country--our men and women in uniform and their many civilian partners who work and sacrifice shoulder to shoulder with our troops in the field--to serve in Afghanistan for 1 year. Ambassador Crocker said he would expect no less of himself, and do no less, whatever the cost. So for the past few months, Ambassador Crocker has fought through persistent pain and discomfort to finish out his 1-year in Kabul, doing everything that is asked of him--and more. On Tuesday, that year came to an end, and Ambassador Crocker came home to receive the care he desperately needs.

This is a remarkable story, but it is only surprising to those who do not know Ryan Crocker. For those of us who have had the pleasure and the honor of coming to know Ryan well, this latest story is not at all surprising. It is actually quite in keeping with the character and the actions of this superb, decent, and selfless man--a man whom I would call, without question or hesitation, the most excellent Foreign Service officer and one of the finest public servants I have ever known.

For the past 41 years, ever since he was a junior diplomat serving in prerevolution Iran, Ryan Crocker has consistently answered the call to serve in the most challenging, the most difficult, but also the most important posts in the world. They were the places, as it turned out, where America needed Ryan Crocker the most, and he has always served with distinction.

He was a young officer in Lebanon when our Embassy was bombed, and Ryan Crocker helped to pull his colleagues from the rubble and then got back to work. He was one of the first civilians into Afghanistan and Iraq after the recent wars, helping to reestablish our diplomatic presence in both countries after decades. He returned to Iraq during the surge and, as General Petraeus tells everyone, was absolutely indispensable in turning around our war effort, even as his life was constantly in danger from the rockets that smashed into his office in Baghdad and, perhaps more threatening, his own relentless work ethic, which literally almost killed him.

Many Presidents, Republicans and Democrats alike, have had the wisdom to appoint Ryan Crocker as their Ambassador to six different countries--Lebanon, Kuwait, Syria, Pakistan, Iraq, and finally Afghanistan.

Ambassador Crocker has been just as indispensable in Kabul as he has everywhere else in his career, from enhancing our relationship with President Karzai and the people of Afghanistan, to negotiating and concluding the Strategic Partnership Agreement with Afghanistan, to being the dedicated partner every hour of every day of GEN John Allen and all of our men and women serving in harm's way.

In my many years and my many travels, I have had the pleasure and honor of meeting and getting to know many of our career diplomats, and I am continually impressed by their high quality and tough-mindedness, their patriotism and love of their country, their constant willingness to serve and the many quiet sacrifices they make. But of all of these remarkable men and women, never have I met a Foreign Service officer more outstanding or more committed to our country than Ryan Crocker.

The one comfort I take in Ryan's departure from Afghanistan is that he remains an abiding inspiration to his fellow diplomats, who revere him and hold him in the highest regard and wish to model themselves and their careers after his life and service. America will be a better and safer place because of this, thanks to Ryan Crocker.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 because it would do very little to improve our country's national security. In fact, in its present form, I believe the bill before us would do more harm to our country's economy and expand the size and influence of the Federal Government--specifically, the Department of Homeland Security--than anything else.

But before I begin my critique of the Cybersecurity Act, I would like to reaffirm my sincere respect for the lead sponsor of this bill--both sponsors, actually, both Senators Lieberman and Collins. Although I disagree, whatever criticisms I may have with the legislation should not be interpreted as an attack on the sponsors of the bill but, rather, on the process by which the bill being debated today arrived before us and its public policy implications.

Consider this for a moment: If we pass this bill in its present form, which I hope we will not, we will have handed over one of the most technologically complex aspects of our national security to an agency with an abysmal track record, the Department of Homeland Security. The problems at DHS are too numerous to list here today, but I think I speak for many when I question the logic of putting this agency in charge of sensitive national security matters. They cannot even screen airline passengers without constant controversy. And do not forget that this is the same outfit in charge of the Chemical Facility Anti- Terrorism Standards Program, or CFATS, which was described in a recent report as ``at

measurable risk,'' beset by deep-seated problems such as wasteful spending and a largely unqualified workforce that lacks ``professionalism.'' I for one am not willing to take such a broad leap of faith and entrust this complex area of our national security and so many vibrant parts of our economy to this ineffective, bloated government agency.

The poor quality of the bill before us is a direct reflection of the lack of a thorough and transparent committee process. Had this bill been subjected to the proper process, my colleagues and I and the American public would have a much better understanding of the real implications of this undertaking. Unfortunately, this bill has not been the subject of one hearing, a single markup, or a whiff of regular legislative procedure.

Our Nation's cybersecurity is critical, and the issue is deserving of the regular order and the full attention and input of every Member of this body. I urge the majority leader to allow a full, fair, and open amendment process if cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed.

All of us should recognize the importance of cybersecurity. Time and again we have heard from experts about the importance of maximizing our Nation's ability to effectively prevent and respond to cyber threats. We have all listened to accounts of cyber espionage originating from countries such as China, organized criminals in Russia, and the depth of the threat from Iran in the aftermath of the Stuxnet leaks originating from the current administration. Unfortunately, this bill would do little to minimize those threats or generally improve our current cybersecurity posture.

The reason for this bill's general inadequacy is that rather than using a liability protection framework to enter into cooperative relationships with the private sector, which happens to own 80 to 90 percent of the critical cyber infrastructure in this country, this bill chooses to take an adversarial approach, with government mandates and inadequate liability protections.

Further, this bill includes unnecessary items that our government cannot afford and makes no mention of what the additional programs will cost. For instance, I am sure some of us have fond childhood memories of going to or taking part in a talent show, but to include talent show provisions in this bill is ridiculous. Title IV of this bill authorizes 9th to 12th grade cyber talent shows and cyber summer programs for kindergartners to seniors in high school--again, ridiculous, especially considering that the majority leader deemed this bill more important than the National Defense Authorization Act.

While I have criticisms with every title of this bill, I will limit my comments today to title I, which regulates critical infrastructure, and title VII, which concerns information sharing among the government and the private sector. In my view, these titles, along with weighing how much this bill, which lacks a CBO score--we do not even know how much it is going to cost--will ultimately cost and how it will dramatically increase the size of the Federal Government, are the most important aspects we can discuss.

With respect to the first title, title I, the proponents of the Cybersecurity Act would have you believe this bill authorizes the private sector to generate their own standards, that those standards are voluntary, and that the bill establishes a ``public-private partnership.'' Unfortunately, I disagree with each of those characterizations. As the bill is currently written, the government and not the private sector would have the final say on what standards look like and the private sector would be forced to comply. While my colleagues might suggest that section 103 states that the private sector proposes ``voluntary'' cybersecurity practices to the government, I call your attention to the following provision in section 103, which states the government would then decide whether and how to ``amend'' or ``add'' to those cybersecurity practices. Additionally, there is no recourse for the private sector to challenge the government's actions.

Soon after the government's takeover of the development of cybersecurity standards, any notion of the standards being ``voluntary'' evaporates. Section 103 clearly states: ``A Federal agency with responsibilities for regulating the security of critical infrastructure may adopt the cybersecurity practices as mandatory requirements.'' That is the language of the bill. What is being portrayed as ``voluntary'' proposals would soon become mandatory requirements.

Unfortunately, the conversion from voluntary to mandatory does not stop there. Shockingly, under this bill, if an agency does not adopt mandatory cybersecurity practices, it must explain why it chose not to do so. That is right. Under this bill, if a regulatory agency chooses not to mandate the ``voluntary'' practices, it must explain itself--as if it must be doing something contrary to the final objective. If this provision does not reveal the true regulatory intent of the proponents of this bill, nothing does.

Section 105 brings home this point by stating: ``Nothing in this title shall be construed to limit the ability of a Federal agency with responsibilities for regulating the security of critical infrastructure from requiring that the cybersecurity practices developed under section 103 be met.'' I would very much commend my colleagues to read that provision of the bill. All you have to do is read it. The regulatory result of these standards could not be clearer.

Moving on to title VII, which deals with the flow of information between the government and the private sector, the current bill is a step in the wrong direction. Specifically, the bill would make us less safe by failing to place the agencies with the most expertise and that are the most capable of protecting us on the same footing as other entities within the Federal Government. It strikes me as counterintuitive to prevent the institutions most capable of protecting the United States from a cyber attack and leave us reliant on agencies with far less capabilities.

Because this bill fails to equitably incentivize the voluntary sharing of information with all of the Federal Government's cyber defense assets, it does a great disservice to our national security. In cyber war, where speed and reaction times are essential to success, real-time responses are essential. The bill language states that information should be shared in ``as close to real time as possible.'' That may sound nice, but it will not get the job done.

We all agree that the threat we face in the cyber domain is among the most significant challenges of the 21st century. It is reckless and irresponsible to rebuild the very stovepipes and information-sharing barriers that the 9/11 Commission attributed as responsible for one of our greatest intelligence failures.

Because of my opposition to this bill and the lack of a regular legislative process, I have joined with Senators Chambliss, Hutchison, Grassley, Murkowski, Burr, Johnson of Wisconsin, and Coats in offering an alternative cybersecurity bill. The fundamental difference in our alternative approach is that we aim to enter into a truly cooperative relationship with the entire private sector through voluntary information sharing rather than an adversarial one with the threat of mandates. Our bill, which also addresses reforming how the government protects its own assets, sets penalties for cyber crimes, refocuses government research toward cybersecurity, and provides a commonsense path forward to improve our Nation's cybersecurity defenses with no new spending. We believe that by improving information sharing among the private sector and the government, updating our Criminal Code to reflect the threat cyber criminals pose, reforming the Federal Information Security Management Act, and focusing Federal investments in cybersecurity, our Nation will be better able to defend itself against cyber attacks.

Even though we do not offer talent shows or summer camps in our bill, it has the support of the industries that themselves are under attack. Before I close, I would like to leave with you a final point which gets to the heart of why we are having this debate. In our country, unlike other countries around the globe, the private sector owns 80 to 90 percent of the critical cyber infrastructure.

This is a fact in which we should all take great pride. After all, it speaks to the essence of American entrepreneuralism and our spirit of individualism. The companies that own these systems are large and small, they

employ men and women everywhere, and their influence reaches every State, every congressional district, and about every corner of our country. While we all agree we are involved in a serious national security discussion, we must not forget to weigh the economic realities of this debate too.

I caution all my colleagues to tread very carefully because I am deeply concerned we are on the cusp of granting the Federal Government broad authorities and influence over one of the most vibrant and innovative sectors of our economy. The technology sector and the use of the Internet by American companies to innovate and improve the customer experience are deeply threatened by the heavy and too often clumsy hand of government.

As we confront the security challenges of an innovative economy, we must be careful not to undermine the economy itself. It is well known that we continue to have discussions amongst various parties: Senator Kyl, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins. Sometimes the crowd is large, sometimes it is not so large. I think we have made some progress. I think there is a better understanding of both of the different proposals that are before us. I do believe it is important, I do believe it is very important that businesses large and small in the United States of America, whether they be the utility companies or whether they be the most high-tech sectors, be represented in these discussions. We have tried to do that.

I believe we can make progress. I believe we can reach an agreement. I also know we have had several meetings and have not had extremely measurable progress. But I am committed to doing everything I can to see we reach that agreement before we conclude the consideration of this legislation.

I would also like to point out to my colleagues that I have had numerous conversations with my friends on the other side of the Capitol. They find this legislation in its present form unacceptable. I would hope we would also consider the fact that we need to get a final bill, not just one passed by the Senate.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to once again urge the majority leader of the Senate to bring to the floor for debate one of the most important pieces of legislation that comes before this body each year; that is, the national defense authorization bill.

On several occasions I have approached the majority leader and asked him to consider this legislation which, for the last 50 years, this body has taken up, debated, amended, passed, conferenced with the House of Representatives, and sent to the President for the President's signature.

Last week, the majority leader, the Senator from Nevada, stated that Senate consideration of a controversial and flawed bill on cybersecurity--a bill that has not been considered in the regular order--is more important and of a higher national security priority than the Defense authorization bill. I respectfully but vehemently disagree with that statement.

According to the majority leader, ``We're going to have to get to cybersecurity before we get to the defense authorization bill because on the relative merits, cybersecurity is more important.''

Let me repeat this. The majority leader of the Senate is arguing that legislation dealing with cybersecurity--which is a subset of national security, of national defense--is more important than legislation responsible for ensuring that the men and women of the Armed Forces have the resources and authorities necessary to ensure our national security--a bizarre statement.

I have been involved in national security issues for a long time. I have been involved with the bills concerning national defense, and I have never heard a statement that cybersecurity is more important than the overall security of this country. That either was the majority leader misspeaking or the majority leader having a lack of understanding of what national security is all about.

He is arguing that a controversial and flawed bill on cybersecurity-- a bill of such ``significance'' that it has languished for over 5 months at the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, with no committee markup or normal committee process, no amendments-- should take precedence over a bill which was vetted for over a period of 4 months by the Senate Armed Services Committee and reported to the floor with the unanimous support of all 26 members, which certainly would not have been the case if there had been a vote on cybersecurity legislation as it is presently proposed, because I am a member of that committee and I and others certainly would never have supported this legislation and at least we should have been allowed the amendment process. But that is not the case with ``cybersecurity.''

Also, I might add, I understand we will have to have a motion to proceed, which then will drag us into next week, when we could--I emphasize could--finish the Defense authorization bill in 1 week and at most 2.

I remind my colleagues that consideration of the Defense authorization bill is more than a simple right of this body. It is an obligation to our national defense and a fulfillment of our responsibility to the men and women in uniform that the Senate has honored over the past 50 consecutive years.

I would say to my colleagues, today I went out to Bethesda Walter Reed to visit with our wounded. It is always an uplifting and always an incredible experience for me to make that visit. Cannot we--cannot we-- as a body, for the sake of those men and women whose lives are on the line, pass a defense authorization bill that is responsible for their security, their training, their weapons, their equipment, their morale, their welfare? Cannot we pass a defense authorization bill through this body? Are we so parochial? Is the Senate majority leader oblivious to the needs of the men and women who are serving this Nation? They deserve better than what they are getting from the leadership of this Senate.

The Senate Armed Services Committee version of the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act provides $525 billion for the base budget of the Defense Department, $88 billion for operations in Afghanistan and around the world, and $17.8 billion to maintain our nuclear deterrent.

In the area of pay and compensation, the bill authorizes $135 billion for military personnel, including costs of pay, allowances, bonuses, and a 1.7-percent across-the-board pay raise for all members of the uniformed services, consistent with the President's request. The bill improves the quality of life of the men and women in the Active and Reserve components of the all-volunteer force. It helps to address the needs of the wounded servicemembers and their families. It also authorizes important military construction and family housing projects that cannot proceed without specific authorization.

All major weapons systems are authorized in this legislation, including those that will benefit by the committee's continuous rigorous oversight of poorly performing programs. Every piece of equipment--large or small--that the Department of Defense needs to develop or procure is authorized in that legislation.

With the planned reductions in Afghanistan, the importance of providing for our deployed troops while training and transitioning responsibilities to the Afghan forces has never been more important. The bill provides our service men and women with the resources, training, equipment, and authorities they need to succeed in combat and stability operations. It also enhances the capability of U.S. forces to support the Afghan National Security Forces and Afghan local police as they assume responsibility for security throughout Afghanistan by the year 2014.

The bill contains important initiatives intended to ensure proper stewardship by the department of taxpayer dollars by, among other things, codifying the 2014 goal for it to achieve an auditable statement of budgetary resources, strictly limiting the use of cost- type contracts for the production of major weapons systems, requiring the Department of Defense to review its existing profit guidelines and revise them as necessary to ensure an appropriate link between contractor profits and contractor performance, enhancing protections for contractor employee whistleblowers, and restricting the use of abusive ``passthrough'' contracts.

Another vitally important provision in the bill repeals provisions of last year's National Defense Authorization Act that threaten to upset the delicate balance between the public sector and

the private sector in the maintenance and repair of military systems, and the bill addresses many other important national security policy issues.

With respect to cybersecurity, I am in full agreement that the threat we face in the cyber domain is among the most significant and challenging threats of 21st century warfare. This threat was made even more evident by the recent leaks about Stuxnet coming from this administration. That is why the Defense authorization bill takes great steps to improve our capabilities by consolidating defense networks to improve security and management and allow critical personnel to be reassigned in support of offensive cyber missions which are presently understaffed. It also provides policy guidance to the Department of Defense to address the clear need for retaliatory capabilities to serve both as a deterrence to and to respond in the event of a cyber attack.

Based on the procedures the Senate has been following over the past few years--with little or no opportunity for debate and amendments--the majority leader apparently intends to rush through the Senate a flawed piece of legislation. The cybersecurity bill he intends to call up later this week is greatly in need of improvement, both in the area of information sharing among all Federal agencies and the appropriate approach to ensuring critical infrastructure protection.

Without significant amendment, the current bill the majority leader intends to push through the Senate has zero chance of passing the House of Representatives or ever being signed into law; whereas, the Defense authorization bill, if we would take it up and pass it, clearly, we would have a successful conference with the House, and we would send it--after voting on the conferenced bill--to the President for his signature. There is no chance the cybersecurity bill the majority leader wants to bring to the floor will have a chance of passage in the House of Representatives.

So here is the choice: take up the Defense authorization bill, which has important cybersecurity provisions in it and provides for the overall defense of the Nation, or take up a flawed bill that never went through the committee, was never amended, take it to the floor, use up 1 week while we go through the motion to proceed, and then maybe pass it, maybe not, and not have it even considered by the other body during the month of September, which is the last we will be in session before the election.

For the life of me, I do not understand why the majority leader of the Senate should have so little regard for the needs of the men and women who are serving in the military today, and I hope he will understand better the needs to defend this Nation, as we are still involved in conflict in Afghanistan, we face a major crisis with Iran over their continued development of nuclear weapons--we just saw the Iranian ability to commit acts of terror all over the world, the latest being in Bulgaria--the fact that Syria is now coming apart and in danger of--because of this administration's failure to lead--that there can be chemical weapons not only spread around Syria but also in other places as well. There is a danger of chemical weapons that are presently under Bashar Assad's control flowing to Hezbollah, presenting a grave threat to the security of Israel.

All these things are happening in the world without this body acting on the most important piece of legislation as far as our national security is concerned, and the majority leader of the Senate apparently has decided not to bring it up and wants to bring up cybersecurity instead. It is a grave injustice--a grave injustice--to the men and women who are serving this Nation and sacrificing so much.

I hope the majority leader of the Senate, who by right of his position and in the majority decides the agenda for the Senate, will change his mind and bring up the Defense authorization bill, which I assure him we can have passed by this body, as always, in a near unanimous vote, if not totally unanimous vote, for the benefit of the security of this Nation.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lieberman and I and Senator Graham--if he shows up--be allowed to engage in a colloquy.

Madam President, I join my friend Senator Lieberman again on the floor on the issue that has, in my view, transcendent consequences not just for the people being massacred in Libya, but also for a definition of what the United States of America is all about.

Yesterday's attack in Syria killed some key leaders of the Assad regime, including one of its most notorious and brutal henchmen. It is a sign of victory and progress for the Syrian opposition and, hopefully, it could be a sign that Assad is losing his hold on power. But it is hardly time to celebrate or claim credit.

I see in the various organs of the administration, such as the New York Times that, well, the administration's hands-off policy has been successful. Successful? Seventeen thousand Syrians have been massacred while this administration has done nothing, and the President has refused to even speak up. The President of the United States talks about Bain Capital all the time. Why doesn't he talk about the capital of Syria where thousands of innocent people have been tortured, raped, and murdered?

So Assad will fall, as the Senator from Connecticut and I have said time and time again. But how many more will die before the United States of America, first, speaks up for them and, second, helps with other countries to provide them with arms and an ability to defend themselves and a sanctuary--a no-fly/no-drive sanctuary--and work with other countries in the region, accelerating the departure of Bashar Assad.

I will make another point before I ask my friend from Connecticut to speak. It seems now that U.S. national security rests not with the decisions that should be made in the Halls of Congress and at the White House, but that the decisions concerning what actions the United States of America may take is now dictated by Russia and China in the United Nations. How many times have we heard the administration say: We would like to do more and have more happen, but Russia vetoes it in the U.N. Security Council?

Does that mean when these people are being massacred and are crying out for our help and moral support, because Russia vetoes a resolution--as they did today again, supported by China--in the Security Council, therefore we can do nothing?

Former President Clinton went to Kosovo without a United Nations Security Council resolution because he knew the Russians would veto any resolution concerning Kosovo. He went and we saved Muslims' lives. The administration continues to assume what they call a ``Yemen solution'' is possible in Syria. They believe that with Russia's backing, we can compel Assad and his top lieutenants to leave power

and the apparatus of the Syrian State will continue to function under new management.

I wish this could be so. Let me also point this out: I ask my friend from Connecticut, isn't it true that the predictions that the longer this conflict lasts, the more likely it is that extremists will come in and take this revolution, which began peacefully?

Isn't it true that our concern about weapons of mass destruction and the stockpile become more valid every day this goes on? Isn't it a valid assumption that Bashar Assad, in his desperation, may use these weapons against his own people, and the whole stockpile of those weapons becomes more and more tenuous by the day?

Isn't it true that the likelihood of further chaos, further inability to put that country and its people back together after this conflict is over and, as we agree, Bashar Assad relieved--but isn't it true that every day that goes by and he remains in power the situation becomes worse in all respects as far as American national security interests are concerned, whether it be weapons of mass destruction, whether it be Islamic extremists taking over that country and, by the way, including the continued Iranian presence in Syria propping up Hezbollah in Lebanon and all of the ramifications of their continued presence there?

I ask my friend, finally, doesn't this argue and cry out that rather than saying, well, what happened yesterday, that was good, and it shows Assad is on his way out--but doesn't this indicate it is now more in our interest to accelerate his departure, not with American boots on the ground but through moral, physical, and logistic support, working with our allies?

Madam President, I thank the majority leader. I urge him, however possible, to bring up the Defense authorization bill, which I hope we can do sooner rather than later, as we have done for the last 50 years. I thank the majority leader.

Madam President, I want to mention to my friend from Connecticut, as we continue this colloquy, there is another aspect of this that I would appreciate his comments on.

We all agree that Bashar Assad will go. We know that. Now, the question is how many will die, how many are wounded, how many are killed, and what happens to the weapons of mass destruction? I think we have established that the longer it goes on, the more those threats increase, and the more dangerous the situation becomes, the harder it will be to resolve once Bashar Assad does leave.

I also ask my friend from Connecticut, how will the Syrian people feel about the United States of America if we continue to sit by and provide them not even moral assistance, much less the physical and logistical assistance the Senator and I discussed being necessary. Senator Lieberman and I have been to Libya on numerous occasions. I was there at an exhilarating moment--at the time of their elections.

I can tell you firsthand from seeing a couple hundred thousand people celebrating that they are grateful to the United States of America for what we did. I wonder what the attitude of the people who will emerge as the new leaders of Syria--whoever they are--what their attitude will be toward the United States, I ask my colleague. Taking into consideration that the challenges that whoever takes over power in Libya will face are myriad, and there are incredible obstacles to a path to a free and democratic nation, that would cry out for American assistance, how willing and eager will they be for the United States to be engaged in any way in assisting them as they try to achieve the goal they have already sacrificed 17,000 lives for?

First of all, I wish to point out that I understand--as I know my friend from Connecticut does--the focus of the American people is on our economy, on jobs, and the severe recession we are in. But I say to my friend from Connecticut, I just wish every American could have been with us or had seen on film a recording of our visit to the refugee camp on the Turkish-Syrian border, with 25,000 refugees--I understand now that is up to 35,000 or 40,000 refugees--from Syria. These are people who have been driven out of their homes, living not in squalid conditions but certainly very crowded and unpleasant conditions. They are certainly not the same conditions which they enjoyed in Syria. I wish the American people could have seen when we met those young children who have been displaced from their homes or when we met a group of men who told us about watching their children being murdered in front of their eyes and of the young women who had been gang raped and hear the defectors from the Syrian military who told us their instructions are--in order to try to subdue the people-- to torture, murder, and rape. We know from human rights organizations there are torture centers set up around Syria by the Assad military, where people are taken and, obviously, tortured.

The American people are the most generous people in the world. The American people, where we can, try to stop these kinds of atrocities and offenses that are against everything we stand for and believe in. I wish more Americans would know how terrible and dire this situation is for the average citizen and not just for those who are demonstrating but anybody who happens to be in one of these areas where the tanks roll in and the artillery starts firing and the helicopter gunships start slaughtering people in the streets.

I hope I am not saying this in a partisan fashion, but I wish the President of the United States would speak up for these people. That is the job of the President of the United States--to lead. I wish we in Congress would do more in order to help these people because that is a long American tradition. Yes, it may require some financial sacrifice and maybe materiel sacrifice on the part of the American people, but I think the cause is one of transcendent importance.

I wish to thank my friend from Connecticut for his compassion, his concern, and his commitment to these people who live far away.

I would say my friend from Connecticut is exactly right. Both he and I visited Lebanon recently, and the fact is that Hezbollah basically controls the government with a Prime Minister who is not Hezbollah but who was put into power by Hezbollah, and their country is basically gridlocked as well. If Syria goes, Bashar Assad goes. That connection between Iran and Hezbollah will be severed and the people of Lebanon will have a great opportunity to have what once was a very thriving democracy restored.

Finally, I would like to mention to my friend one of the things that surprises me from time to time as I have traveled to places such as Burma, whose people were recently freed. I met three men there who were in prison, one of whom had been there for 18 years and another for 22 years. When I have traveled to Libya, as I was for the elections the other day, when I have been in Egypt and I have met some of the young people who were part of the revolution, and in Tunisia, where we met the young people there and the new government there, much to my surprise, to some degree, they pay attention to what we say. They pay attention.

These three men who were imprisoned for over 20 years said: Thank you for what you said. We listened to you in prison. The people in Libya on election night, waving little Libyan flags, were saying thank you. Thank you, America. Thank you. Thank you, Senator McCain, for saying that. The people in Syria are listening and will find out what we are saying today on the floor of the Senate.

Does it matter much? I don't know. But the people in Syria know there are some of us who are committed and will not rest until this massacre stops, until these terrible atrocities cease, and that we will continue to do everything we can to provide them with the kind of moral assistance, which is a vital ingredient in continuing their resistance, and the materiel assistance which provides them the wherewithal to gain their freedom.

President Clinton said his greatest regret was that we did not intervene in Rwanda, where some 800,000 people were massacred.

I think the Senator is exactly right and has described it well.

There is an element also that adds more urgency, of which I know the Senator from Connecticut is very well aware; that is, that published media reports have talked about the fact that weapons of mass destruction--which, apparently, Bashar Assad has significant stocks of--have been moved around. For what purpose those weapons have been moved around is not known. But it is not an unbelievable scenario that, in final desperation, Bashar Assad would behave as his father did and use these chemical weapons and slaughter unknown numbers of people.

Again, that information lends urgency to bringing him down, to having it happen as quickly as possible, and that, of course, means the kind of engagement the Senator from Connecticut just described.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, rarely do I come to the floor of this body to discuss particular individuals. But I understand how painful and injurious it is when a person's character, reputation, and patriotism are attacked without concern for fact or fairness. It is for that reason that I come to the floor today to speak regarding the attacks recently on a fine and decent American, Huma Abedin.

Over the past decade, I have had the pleasure of knowing her during her long and dedicated service to Hillary Rodham Clinton, both in the Senate and now in the Department of State. I know Huma to be an intelligent, upstanding, hard-working, and loyal servant of our country and our government, who has devoted countless days of her life to advancing the ideals of the Nation she loves and looking after its most precious interests. That she has done so well maintaining her characteristic decency, warmth, and good humor is a testament to her ability to bear even the most arduous duties with poise and confidence.

Put simply, Huma Abedin represents what is best about America: the daughter of immigrants, who has risen to the highest levels of our government on the basis of her substantial personal merit and her abiding commitment to the American ideals she embodies. I am proud to know her, and I am proud--even maybe with some presumption--to call her my friend.

Recently, it has been alleged that Huma Abedin, a Muslim American, is part of a nefarious conspiracy to harm the United States by unduly influencing U.S. foreign policy at the Department of State in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes. On June 13, five Members of Congress wrote to the Deputy Inspector General of the Department of State demanding that he begin an investigation into the possibility that Huma Abedin, and other American officials, are using their influence to promote the cause of Muslim Brotherhood within the U.S. government. The information offered to support these serious allegations is based on a report, ``The Muslim Brotherhood in America,'' which is produced by the Center for Security Policy. I wish to point out, I have worked with the Center for Security Policy. The head of it is a longtime friend of mine. Still, this report is scurrilous.

To say that the accusations made in both documents are not substantiated by the evidence they offer is to be overly polite and diplomatic about it. It is far better and more accurate to talk straight. These allegations about Huma Abedin and the report from which they are drawn are nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable citizen, a dedicated American, and a loyal public servant.

The letter alleges that three members of Huma's family are ``connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.'' Never mind that one of these individuals--Huma's father--passed away two decades ago. The letter and the report offer not one instance of an action, a decision, or a public position that Huma has taken while at the State Department or as a member of then-Senator Clinton's staff that would lend credence to the charge that she is promoting anti- American activities within our government. Nor does either document offer any evidence of a direct impact that Huma may have had on one of the U.S. policies with which the authors of the letter and the producers of the report find fault. These sinister accusations rest solely on a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma's family--none of which have been shown to harm or threaten the United States in any way. These attacks have no logic, no basis, and no merit, and they need to stop. They need to stop now.

Ultimately, what is at stake in this matter is larger even than the reputation of one person. This is about who we are as a Nation and who we aspire to be. What makes America exceptional among the countries of the world is that we are bound together as citizens, not by blood or class, not by sector or ethnicity, but by a set of enduring universal and equal rights that are the foundations of our Constitution, our laws, our citizenry, and our identity. When anyone--not least a Member of Congress--launches specious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are and ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our Nation, and we all grow poorer because of it.

Our reputations and our character are the only things we leave behind when we depart this Earth, and unjust acts that malign the good name of a decent and honorable person are not only wrong, they are contrary to everything we hold dear as Americans.

Some years ago, I had the pleasure, along with my friend, the Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, of traveling overseas with our colleague then-Senator Hillary Clinton. By her side, as always, was Huma, and I had the pleasure of seeing firsthand her hard work and dedicated service on behalf of the former Senator from New York, a service that continues to this day at the Department of State and bears with it a significant personal sacrifice for Huma.

I have every confidence in her loyalty to our country, and everyone else should as well. All Americans owe her a debt of gratitude for her many years of superior public service. I hope these ugly and unfortunate attacks on her can immediately be brought to an end and put behind us before any further damage is done to a woman, an American, of genuine patriotism and love of country.

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

Mr. President, may I say to my colleague that I thank him for his important words, and I thank the Republican leader for his commitment. I also point out that the Senator from Alabama, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, has some very

interesting statistics that I hope in the course of our colloquy he will talk about--how America's spending on defense has decreased over the years and how Draconian the effects on national defense will be in the case of the implementation of the sequester on our defense spending and the security of our Nation.

We need to discuss this issue in the context of what the Secretary of Defense said. He said that if this sequestration is implemented, it will place our national security in jeopardy. It will be, in his words, devastating. So I believe it is important for the American people and our colleagues to understand that the Secretary of Defense--not John McCain, Senator Sessions, or any of my Republican colleagues, but the Secretary of Defense--said it will be devastating.

We live in a dangerous world--a very dangerous world. If we cut defense the way this sequestration is headed, then there is no doubt we will have the smallest Navy and Air Force in history, with fewer ships than we have had since before World War II, and it will be a hollow force.

I would like to make one other comment as my friends join me. What is our country's greatest obligation? What is our No. 1 obligation, both the administration and Congress? It is to ensure the security of our Nation. That takes priority over every other item on our agenda. So when we start talking about sequestration, that is important in its effect, but I also think it is entirely proper--in fact, it should be our priority to talk about sequestration's effect on our defense.

I will point out that all of my colleagues here know we are facing reductions in defense. We already had $87 billion implemented by Secretary Gates, and another $400 billion has already been implemented. If we implement this sequestration, it will be over $1 trillion in a very short period of time.

We need to sit down and work together, Republicans, Democrats, and the President--who so far has been completely MIA--and work this out so that we can avoid what can be Draconian cuts and jeopardize our national defense, not to mention, as I am sure my colleague from Alabama will point out, the effect on our economy--the effect on our economy of over 1 million jobs lost and a reduction in our GDP.

So this is an important discussion. This is a very important debate. And if someone disagrees with our assessment and that of the Secretary of Defense, then I will be glad to listen to their arguments. But until then, I will take the word of the Secretary of Defense that this implementation of Defense sequestration will put our Nation in jeopardy.

I would respond to my friend, through the Chair, that I don't think in the dangerous world in which we live that we can afford to have the smallest Air Force in history, the smallest Navy since before World War II, and the smallest Army since before World War II. Most importantly, we have to continue to modernize and we have to continue to invest, as my friend from Alabama knows.

The fact is we have a crisis with Iran, we have a rising challenge with increasing activities of China, we have an unsettled North Africa, we have an Arab spring going on all over the Middle East, and all of these present a compelling argument for us to be prepared to meet contingencies.

If we were having this debate a year and a half ago, Ben Ali is in power in Tunisia, Qadhafi is in power in Libya, Mubarak is in power in Egypt, and there would not be a bloody civil war taking place in Syria. So where will we be, I ask my friend from Alabama, a year and a half from now? I don't know. But it seems to me we cannot afford to be cutting defense in this fashion.

Would the Senator show this other chart?

Mr. President, here we are with 41 months of over 8 percent unemployment in America, and the national defense authorization bill is languishing in the shadows while we continue to have this debate and, obviously, there is no doubt in most people's minds that-- with the full knowledge of the sponsors of this legislation that it will not pass--it is obviously for certain political purposes.

I oppose cloture on the motion. My reasons for opposing this motion are simple, even though the subject of campaign finance reform is not. In its current form, the DISCLOSE Act is closer to a clever attempt at political gamesmanship than actual reform.

By conveniently setting high thresholds for reporting requirements, the DISCLOSE Act forces some entities to inform the public about the origins of their financial support, while allowing others--most notably those affiliated with organized labor--to fly below the Federal Election Commission's regulatory radar.

My colleagues are aware that I have a long history of fighting for campaign finance reform and to break the influence of money in American politics. Regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court may do or say, I continue to be proud of my record because I believe the cause to improve our democracy and further empower the citizens of our country was and continues to be worth fighting for.

But let's be clear. Reforms that we have successfully enacted over the years have not cured all the public cynicism about the state of politics in our country. No legislative measure or Supreme Court decision will completely free politics from influence peddling or the appearance of it. But I do believe that fair and just reforms will move many Americans, who have grown more and more disaffected from the practices and institutions of our democracy, to begin to get a clearer understanding of whether their elected representatives value their commitment to our Constitution more than their own incumbency.

For far too long, money and politics have been deeply intertwined. Anyone who has ever run for a Federal office will assure us of the fact that candidates come to Washington not seeking wisdom or ideas but because they need help raising money. The same candidates will most likely tell us they are asked one question when they announce they are going to seek office. Unfortunately, it is not how they feel about taxes or what is their opinion of the role of government. No, the question they are asked is: How are you going to raise the money? Couple that sad reality with the dawn of the super PAC spending from corporate treasuries and record spending by big labor and one can easily see a major scandal is not far off, and there will be a scandal, mark my words. The American people know it and I know it.

Reform is necessary, but it must be fair and just and this legislation is not. I say that from many years of experience on this issue.

A recent Wall Street Journal article by Tom McGinty and Brody Mullins, titled ``Political Spending by Unions Far Exceeds Direct Donations,'' noted that organized labor spent about four times as much on politics and lobbying as originally thought--$4.4 billion from 2005 to 2011. According to the Wall Street Journal's analysis, unions are spending far more money on a wider range of political activities than what is reported to the Federal Election Commission. The report plainly states:

This kind of spending, which is on the rise, has enabled

the largest unions to maintain and in some cases increase

their clout in Washington and state capitals, even though

unionized workers make up a declining share of the workforce.

The result is that labor could be a stronger counterweight

than commonly realized to ``super PACs'' that today raise

millions from wealthy donors, in many cases to support

Republican candidates and causes.

The hours spent by union employees working on political

matters were equivalent in 2010 to a shadow army much larger

than President Obama's current re-election staff, data

analyzed by the Journal show.

The report goes on to note:

Another difference is that companies use their political

money differently than unions do, spending a far larger share

of it on lobbying, while not undertaking anything equivalent

to unions' drives to persuade members to vote as the

leadership dictates. Corporations and their employees also

tend to spread their donations fairly evenly between the two

major parties, unlike unions, which overwhelmingly assist

Democrats. In 2008, Democrats received 55 percent of the $2

billion contributed by corporate PACs and company employees,

while labor unions were responsible for $75 million in

political donations, with 92 percent of it going to

Democrats.

The traditional measure of unions' political spending--

reports filed by the FEC--undercounts the effort unions pour

into politics because the FEC reports are mostly based on

donations unions make to individual candidates from their

PACs, as well as spending on campaign advertisements.

Unions spend millions of dollars yearly paying teams of

political hands to contact members, educating them about

election issues and trying to make sure they vote for union-

endorsed candidates.

Such activities are central to unions' political power: The

proportion of members who vote as the leadership prefers has

ranged from 68 percent to 74 percent over the past decades at

AFL-CIO-affiliated unions, according to statistics from the

labor federation.

Additionally, a February 22, 2012, Washington Post article, titled ``Union Spending for Obama, Democrats Could Top $400 million in 2012 Election.'' AFSCME reportedly expects to spend $100 million ``on political action, including television advertising, phone banks and member canvassing, while the SEIU plans to spend at least $85 million in 2012.

With that analysis, combined with the $1.1 billion the unions reported to

the FEC from 2005 to 2011, and the additional $3.3 billion unions reported to the Labor Department over the same period on political activity, the need for equal treatment of political advocacy under the law becomes readily apparent. I repeat, the need for equal treatment of political advocacy under the law becomes readily apparent.

Given the strength and political muscle behind all these figures, it is easy to understand why disclosure may sound nice, but unless the treatment is completely fair, taking into account the diverse nature and purpose of different types of organizations, disclosure requirements will likely be used to give one side a political advantage over another. That is just one of the flaws of the bill before us today.

The DISCLOSE Act would have little impact on unions because of the convenient thresholds for reporting. But it would have a huge effect on associations and other advocacy groups. From my own experience, I can state without question that real reform--and, in particular, campaign finance reform--will never be attained without equal treatment of both sides. A half dose of campaign finance reform will be quickly--and rightly--labeled as political favoritism and will undermine future opportunities for true progress. Furthermore, these sorts of games and measures will only make the American people more cynical and have less faith in what we do.

The authors of this bill insist it is fair and not designed to benefit one party over the other. Sadly, the stated intent doesn't comport with the facts. The DISCLOSE Act is written to burden labor unions significantly less than the other groups. In the United States, there are roughly 14 million to 16 million union members, each of whom is required to pay dues to its local union chapter. Historically, these local union chapters send a portion of their revenues up to their affiliated larger ``international'' labor unions. And while each union member's dues may be modest, the amounts that ultimately flow up to the central political arms are vast. The DISCLOSE Act protects this flow of money in two distinct ways: No. 1, organizations that engage in political conduct are only required to disclose payments to it that exceed $10,000 in a 2-year election cycle, meaning the local union chapter will not be required to disclose the payments of individual union members to the union even if those funds will be used for political purposes.

What is the final difference between one $10,000 check and 1,000 $10 checks? Other than the impact on trees, very little. So why should one be free from having to disclose its origin?

No. 2, the bill exempts from the disclosure requirements transfers from affiliates that do not exceed $50,000 for a 2-year election cycle. As a result, unions would not have to disclose the transfers made to it by many of its smaller local chapters. Given the contrast between union and corporate structures, this would allow unions to fall beneath the bill's threshold limits. For local union chapters, this anonymity is probably pretty important because, among other effects, it prevents union chapter members from learning how much of their dues payments are being used on political activities.

While the exemptions outlined in the DISCLOSE Act may be facially applied to business organizations and associations, it is apparent to me the unions' unique pyramid-style, ground-up, money-funneling structure would allow unions to not be treated equally by the DISCLOSE Act. Unlike unions, most organizations do not have thousands of local affiliates where they can pull up to $50,000 in ``affiliate transfers.''

I have been involved in the issue of campaign finance reform for most of my career. I am proud of my record. I am supportive of measures which call for full and complete disclosure of all spending in Federal campaigns. I reaffirmed this commitment by submitting an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court regarding campaign finance reform along with the author of the DISCLOSE Act. This bill falls short. The American people see it for what it is: Political opportunism at its best, political demagoguery at its worst.

My former colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, and I set out to eliminate the corrupting influence of soft money and to reform how our campaigns are paid for. We vowed to be truly bipartisan and to do nothing which would give one party a political advantage over the other. The fact is this gives one party an advantage over the other.

I say with great respect to the Senator from Rhode Island, the way I began campaign finance reform is I found a person on the other side of the aisle who was willing to work with me, and we worked together on campaign finance reform. The Senator from Rhode Island and the sponsors of this bill have no one on this side of the aisle. By not having anyone on this side of the aisle, the Senator from Rhode Island has now embarked on a partisan enterprise.

I suggest strongly to the sponsors of the bill--if they are serious about campaign finance reform and about curing the evils going on now-- they approach Members on this side of the aisle and make sure our concerns about the role of labor unions in this financing of political campaigns are addressed as well.

It is too bad--it is too bad--that Members on that side of the aisle are now orchestrating a vote which is strictly partisan in nature when they know full well the only way true campaign finance reform will ever be enacted by the Congress is in a bipartisan fashion. This is a partisan bill, and I am disappointed we are wasting the time of the Senate on a bill--and on a cause that is of utmost importance, in my view--in a partisan fashion.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, be recognized following my remarks.

Mr. President, this body for 50 years has passed the National Defense Authorization Act, and for 50 years, after conference, it has reached the President's desk and been signed by the President of the United States.

There are many pressing issues that confront the Senate, the Congress, and the Nation. But I don't think we should forget that our first obligation is to secure the safety of our citizens, and that can only be done by training, arming, and equipping the men and women who are serving in the military.

Mr. President, a couple of months ago, through the Senate Armed Services Committee, we passed the National Defense Authorization Act, and it has some very important components in it to continue to support the men and women who are serving, and their families, and to provide them with the equipment and training they need to defend this Nation.

We are still in conflict in Afghanistan. We are on the brink of a crisis with Iran over nuclear weapons. We have adjusted our presence in Asia in response to the rising influence of China. The uprising in Syria threatens to spill over into neighboring countries. And, of course, the situation in Egypt is clearly one of significant question as to how the Egyptian Government and people will progress. Some would argue that in many respects the State of Israel is under more threat than at any time since perhaps the 1973 war. So we live in a dangerous world. We live in a very uncertain time. And it seems to me our priorities should be to bring the national defense authorization bill to the floor.

The bill received a unanimous vote in committee by both Republicans and Democrats. I am proud of the relationship the chairman and I have developed over many years of working together. I am confident that despite the fact there will be hundreds of amendments filed, we can work through those and work through the process, as we have in the past, and bring the Defense authorization bill to a conclusion and to conference with the House and then signed by the President of the United States. We owe this to the men and women who are serving in the military. It is not our right, it is our obligation to get the authorization bill to the President's desk.

We may have significant disagreements, but for 50 years this body has passed the Defense authorization bill and it has been signed by the President of the United States. We are in some danger of not getting this done this year when we look at the remaining weeks we have in session and the number of challenges that are before us. So I think it is time we step back and look at the requirement to pass this legislation.

I have some sympathy for the majority leader in that there is great difficulty in the way we are doing business nowadays. But I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will all recognize the importance of this legislation. We must urge Members on both sides to set aside their own personal agendas and do what is necessary for the defense of this Nation.

The bill provides $525 billion for the base budget of the Defense Department, $88 billion for operations in Afghanistan and around the world, and $17.8 billion to maintain our nuclear deterrent. The bill authorizes $135 billion for military personnel, including the cost of pay, allowances, bonuses, and a 1.7-percent across-the-board pay increase for all members of the uniformed services--something I think all of us would agree is well-earned. That is, by the way, also the President's request. It improves the quality of life for the men and women in the Active and Reserve components of the All-Volunteer Force and helps to address the needs of the wounded servicemembers and their families.

As we and our NATO partners reduce operations in Afghanistan, the importance of transitioning responsibility to Afghan forces increases, as does the need to provide for the protection of our deployed troops. This legislation provides our service men and women with the resources, training, equipment, and authorities they need to succeed in combat and stability operations. It enhances the capability of U.S. forces to support the Afghan National Security Forces and Afghan local police as they assume responsibility for security throughout Afghanistan by the year 2014.

Weapons systems modernization is essential to the future viability of our national security strategy, and this legislation provides for substantial improvement of legacy ships, aircraft, and vehicles, while authorizing research and development investments to ensure our troops remain the best equipped in the world. The bill authorizes the President's request for missile defense and accelerates support for our allies, including the joint U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs, such as the Arrow weapon system and the David's Sling short- range missile defense system. It also provides multiyear procurement authority for the Chinook helicopters, V-22 aircraft, Virginia-class submarines, and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, reflecting estimated savings of more than $7 billion over 5 years. And none of this can take place unless we pass the authorization bill.

The committee also sought to improve the ability of the armed services to counter nontraditional threats, including terrorism, cyber warfare, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I believe the key battlefield of the 21st century will be cyber warfare, and I am concerned about our ability to fight and win in this new domain. To improve the Defense Department's cyber capabilities, this legislation consolidates defense networks to improve security and management, which will permit personnel to be reassigned to support offensive cyber missions, which are understaffed.

The issue of nuclear proliferation is addressed, and other programs to counter the flow of improvised explosive devices and curtail the trade of worldwide narcotics are authorized in this bill.

Especially important are provisions to enhance the capability of the security forces of allied and friendly nations to defeat al-Qaida, its affiliates, and other violent extremist organizations. The Armed Services Committee extended the Defense Department's authority to train and equip forces in Yemen to counter al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and forces in east Africa to counter al-Qaida affiliates and elements of al-Shabaab.

To ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with law and regulation, the bill promotes aggressive and thorough oversight of the Department's programs and activities. This includes adding funding for the Department of Defense inspector general. The Department of Defense inspector general reviews resulted in an estimated $2.6 billion in savings in 2011--a return on investment of more than $8 for every $1 spent. The committee mark also codifies the 2014 goal for the Department of Defense to achieve an auditable statement of budgetary resources.

Further, it improves the cost-effectiveness of DOD contracting by limiting the use of cost-type contracts for the production of major weapons systems. In addition, the bill includes a series of wartime contracting provisions drawn from the McCaskill-Webb bill implementing the recommendations of the Commission on Wartime Contracting. In that vein, the bill enhances protections for contractors that blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse in defense contracts.

Finally, this legislation requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a detailed report to Congress on the impact budget sequestration will have on military readiness and national security. Similar legislative language has been passed twice by this body and by the House of Representatives. The Congress does not yet have an accurate understanding of the implications of sequester beyond an assertion that the cuts would be ``devastating,'' which is the word used by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and nearly every other defense official we have queried. We must have this information as we begin the work of developing a balanced approach to deficit reduction that replaces sequestration with a responsible plan for getting our Nation's finances in order.

I want to repeat, Mr. President, that for 50 years, I am proud to say--and in the years I have been in this, obviously--we have successfully authorized the programs and policies of the Department of Defense. I am proud of what this committee has done. I am proud of what the Senate has done. I am proud of what the Congress has done and the Presidents these pieces of legislation have come before for their signature. Let's not allow the anticipation of an election to hinder our ability to act in the interests of the men and women who are so bravely serving our Nation.

I hope the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, will come to an agreement so that we can have a date certain. And I can assure the leadership on both sides that Senator Levin and I will again be able to expedite this process, allowing amendments and debate as they are called for and at the same time come to a successful conclusion and make this the 51st year we have succeeded in doing what is necessary to fulfill our most solemn and important obligation, which is to do everything within our power to ensure the security of this Nation.

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

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, first of all, I thank the Senator for his eloquent statement on behalf of those who have served and sacrificed.

Since we will all be spread around at different places over the Fourth of July and celebrating our independence, I think those are very appropriate and moving words.

I am reminded of the saying at the battlefield, written:

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a brief colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, we are also facing another crisis as far as the military is concerned; that is, the looming prospect of sequestration. The Secretary of Defense has stated that sequestration would have a ``devastating impact'' on our national security. We are talking about layoffs, and some estimates are of as many as 1 million workers in the defense industry. We are looking at unknown effects of the strategic thinking that goes on as we plan to defend our Nation's security--for example, our shift in emphasis from Europe to Asia Pacific, which requires significant air and naval assets amongst other things.

I would ask my colleague--I am not sure the American people are fully aware of the effects of something that is supposed to take effect, as I understand it, at the beginning of the next fiscal year, which would be the beginning of October 2012. Is that a correct statement, I would ask my colleague?

So we are asking the Defense Department to plan on what

our force structure will be, what our mission will be, what our capabilities will be, beginning the first of October, and all I can see so far is total gridlock on this issue.

Now, if somebody wants to say it is our fault because we refused to ``raise revenues'' or because of the other side's insistence on that and a resistance to spending cuts, I say to my colleague, I do not think people understand we still live in a very dangerous world. The Senator just talked about those who have already sacrificed. Don't we owe it to them and their families to stop something that all of us agree would have a catastrophic impact on our ability to defend this Nation?

Isn't it true--would the Senator agree--that it is time we sat down and started having serious negotiations, because there is no greater responsibility the Congress and the people's representatives have than to defend the security of this Nation?

I know the Senator from South Carolina--before I ask him to answer-- traveled around his State, which I intend to do, to the various military installations and talked about what would happen with this sequestration. We are talking about a very limited period of time. We are about to go out of session. We will be in during the month of July--most of the month of July--and probably the month of September. End of story.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl be included in the colloquy.

I wish to add--I note the presence of the Senator from New Hampshire who has also played a very key leadership role, including working with the mayors of every city in America, who have issued a resolution about their concern about this issue.

I wish also to state to my friends and colleagues that I know the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, whom I have had the opportunity of working with for 25 years, the Senator from Michigan, also shares our concern.

I hope we could at least get some of us together who have been involved with these issues of national security for so many years on both sides of the aisle, that we could reach some kind of an agreement. We know additional sacrifices have to be made when we are facing a $16 trillion deficit. But to take the overwhelming majority--well over 50 percent of these reductions--out of what is about, I believe, 12 percent of our spending is obviously not appropriate.

One other point. If the President of the United States shares the concern that the Secretary of Defense shares--catastrophic, impossible to plan on, so draconian that it would cripple our ability to defend this Nation; all of those are statements which the Secretary of Defense has made--I would argue that it would be appropriate, and I would sincerely ask that perhaps the President of the United States also be involved and members of his administration or charter members of the administration to sit down with us to see how we could resolve this.

So far the executive branch has not been involved in these efforts, with the exception of the Secretary of Defense, who has told us in the most graphic terms the devastating consequences. Again, I want to point out to my colleagues: You have to plan, especially in national defense, what weapons you are going to procure, the number of people you are going to maintain in the military, what those missions are going to be.

All of those right now, if held in abeyance in the Pentagon as far as planning is concerned, cannot have a

great deal of validity if we are staring at sequestration and these draconian reductions.

Yes. And I know our most eloquent member has arrived on the floor, not to mention other attributes we are lacking.

I know it is the only way we are going to solve this. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Hampshire be included. I know the Senator from Tennessee, our friend Senator Corker, is waiting. But I think my friend from South Carolina, as usual, has stated the problem and a solution here. The problem is, we face a devastating impact on our national security. The solution is for our leaders and the President--if possible--to convene a group of Senators, whether it includes us or not is immaterial, on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the Capitol, to sit down and work this out so we can avoid the sequester.

I will take responsibility for sequester if that is what is necessary. But I also say that without concrete, significant, and meaningful action to cause this sequester to be prevented, we are risking the lives of our young men and women who are serving in the military. I do not know of a greater responsibility that we have.

I ask the Senator from New Hampshire if she agrees.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal.) The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.