Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in addition to the two cloture votes on bills dealing with the sequester today, there be set a time, to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader, that without intervening action or debate the Senate proceed to a rollcall vote on the motion to proceed to my alternative bill dealing with the sequester which is now at the desk.

I thank the Chair, and I thank very much the Senator from Rhode Island for allowing me the opportunity to continue and for sorting out the order on the floor.

I will, and then, obviously, I would like to make a few comments.

I thank the Senator for that.

I thank the Senator for his statement and for his support and I certainly join in the comments and concerns that were just raised by my colleagues Senators McCain and Graham.

Here is where we are. We are in this position where, frankly, as Senator McCain said, this is a charade. Both parties are acting out this play where we are going to have one vote on the Democratic alternative that is going to fail, and then we are going to have another vote on one Republican alternative that is going to fail. So I put pen to paper and came up with some other ways to cut spending, which comes to about $250 billion in savings over the next 10 years, in order to address sequester and also to have an alternative because I believe the American people see through this charade of what is going to happen today and that, ultimately, as prior speakers have said, the sequester was set up to be resolved in a way where we had alternative savings that did not undermine our national security and some of the core services that could be put at risk in the way the sequester is structured.

I firmly believe, when we look at what has happened, this bill was ill-conceived from the beginning. I didn't support it. I didn't vote for it. One of the fundamental problems with it was it was a kick-the- can-down-the-road exercise where we gave our responsibility to find the $1.2 trillion in savings--the sequester--to a supercommittee, rather than the Senate and the Budget Committee doing our job of budgeting and prioritizing.

So stepping back, that is what has led us here. But I am also disappointed in my Republican colleagues, and that is why I offer an alternative of spending cuts, because it seems to me, the way this is structured we have already taken $487 billion in reductions to our defense. I serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee. For 1 year on that committee, I have been listening to our military leaders at every single level when asking them about the sequester. From the highest leaders, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Secretary of Defense, we have heard things such as we are going to shoot ourselves in the head, we are going to hollow out our force, and America will no longer be a global power, which is what General Dempsey once told us, as a result of sequestration.

This morning, we had leaders of our military before the Armed Services Committee and I asked Assistant Secretary Estevez: If we go with the flexibility approach, does this address the impact on our national security? In other words, will this address making sure we can still meet the needs of our national security?

Let us not forget this is happening at a time when Iran is marching toward a nuclear weapon, when we have conflict in Syria, and when we are still at war. By the way, with this sequester, the way it impacts the Department of Defense, our war funding was not exempt. Over 50 percent of spending, as this was set up from the beginning, was exempt from the sequester, which of course is no way to find savings throughout the whole government, but we didn't exempt the war funding.

So at a time of war, I asked the Assistant Secretary: Does the flexibility solve the problem to our national security? And he said: Certainly, flexibility

will help us deal with it, but it will not solve the problem in terms of our national security.

So that is why I decided to come up with some alternative savings. My proposal will not get a vote today. I think it is a time when, frankly, we should be bringing more ideas to the floor, not less ideas, and debating this vigorously in the Senate, instead of where we are right now, which is a charade. We are going to have one vote and another vote and then we are all going to go to our respective sides and say: OK, American people, we know there are real risks, particularly to the safety of this country, that we should be addressing. From my perspective, I believe we can address them through alternative spending cuts.

Through all this, we have the President, who has called leaders of both parties tomorrow to the White House. I have spent a year working on this issue. He was at the Newport News shipyard the other day. We were there in July talking about the impact on that shipyard. We traveled to States around the country--to military facilities--to talk to the people there at those facilities about the impact of sequester. I think the President should have been on this much sooner, but now it is time for his leadership as the Commander in Chief--leadership we could have used this past summer when we were all talking about it. We could have been in a position to try to resolve it then rather than continuing to be in these crisis moments in which we find ourselves in the Senate.

Where I am left on all this is that we owe it to our men and women in uniform to find alternative ways to save the money, still protecting our national security. Also, so people understand how this plays out, the way the cuts are taken in 2013--during a shorter period, not a full period--OMB has estimated on the defense end it is about 13 percent, on top of the $487 billion in reductions, and in nondefense spending it is about 9 percent over the additional $487 billion.

So I would just simply ask for a time to stop this charade, and it is my hope we could actually get down to resolving this in a responsible way for our country. That is why I put pen to paper. People can be critical of my proposal, but I think that now is the time when we should have a vote on every proposal and we should have every idea come to the table because it is a time to stop the charade and it is a time to solve this problem. Let's make sure we protect our country at a very dangerous time.

I will continue to work to do that for our country. I think we can do it, still addressing our deficit, still with savings, but we certainly need to do it, and having the charade vote we are going to have today will not solve it. The American people deserve better and we should be giving them better and solving this.

I thank the Chair for allowing me the time, and I yield the floor.

Would the Senator from Maryland yield for a brief comment?

I thank the Senator, and I wanted to first say I know she is the new chair of the Appropriations Committee and I congratulate her on that. As we go forward, as we look at why we are where we are, if we can get back to regular order in the Senate, with a budget and a regular appropriations process, I think we would do a great service for the American people and eliminate this crisis-to-crisis mode. I know, as the new chair of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Mikulski will play a leadership position in doing that.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize and congratulate chief of police M. James ``Jim'' Alexander, Jr., of the Lebanon New Hampshire Police Department for his more than 26 years of dedicated law enforcement service to our State and Nation.

The Chief began his law enforcement career as a police officer with the Brattleboro, VT, Police Department in 1987. Chief Alexander then joined the Lebanon New Hampshire Police Department in 1990 as a patrol officer. He was promoted to patrol supervisor in 1991, sergeant in 1996, lieutenant in 1999, captain in 2002, and deputy chief in 2004. Jim was appointed Lebanon's chief of police on March 1, 2006.

During his long career as a public safety professional, Chief Alexander has been a leader in promoting community-oriented policing, improving public safety within the State of New Hampshire, and promoting sound public policies and practices, which have helped keep New Hampshire one of the safest States in the Nation. Chief Alexander has worked tirelessly with his peers and with other public safety officials to better the administration of justice. He is well known for his collaboration with local, county, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies. He was recognized in 2007 with the Community Health Leadership Award, and in 2009 he received recognition for his extraordinary commitment and contributions to the Grafton County Drug Court Program. Under his leadership, the Lebanon, NH, Police Department was cited for the extraordinary assistance provided to the U.S. Marshals Service in helping to successfully end a dangerous 9-month- long standoff with convicted antigovernment activists.

As Chief Alexander celebrates his retirement, I commend him on a job well done. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him, his wife Deb, and their adult children, Nick and Jacqui, well in all future endeavors.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize and congratulate chief of police Vinnie Baiocchetti of the Belmont, NH, Police Department for his 37 years of dedicated service to the firefighting and law enforcement professions, the town of Belmont, and the State of New Hampshire.

Beginning his public safety career as a firefighter and emergency medical technician in 1976, Vinnie then joined the Laconia, NH, Police Department in 1983 as a part-time police officer, became a full-time officer for the Gilmanton, NH, Police Department in 1984, and was promoted to sergeant in that agency in 1991. He joined the Belmont, NH, Police Department in 2001, where he was promoted to sergeant in 2002, and appointed chief of police in 2003.

During his long career as a public safety professional, Chief Baiocchetti continued to serve with the Laconia NH, Fire Department as a call firefighter and fire investigator. Chief Baiocchetti has been a leader in promoting community-oriented policing, improving public safety within the State of New Hampshire, and promoting sound public policies and practices, which have helped keep New Hampshire one of the safest States in the Nation. Chief Baiocchetti has worked tirelessly with his peers and with other public safety officials to better the administration of justice and to train members of New Hampshire's police and fire communities. He has focused on mentoring young people interested in the law enforcement profession through Law Enforcement Exploring. Chief Baiocchetti served as an adviser, assistant commander, and commander of the New Hampshire Police Cadet Training Academy during his more than 25 years of work with this unique and nationally emulated summer program for teenagers.

As Chief Baiocchetti celebrates his retirement, I want to commend him on a job well done and ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him, his wife Tammy, and daughter Ashley, well in all future endeavors.

Madam President, I wish to say a few words about my friend Joe Lieberman, the gentleman from Connecticut.

Shortly after I arrived in the Senate, Senator Lieberman was assigned to serve as my mentor--someone from the other side of the aisle who would be a source of wisdom and guidance as I made my way in my first term in the Senate.

I considered myself extremely fortunate that he agreed to mentor me. We are both from New England. We both had the privilege of serving our State as attorney general and have a deep respect for the rule of law. And we are both deeply concerned about issues impacting the security of our country.

Over the last 2 years, I have been able to work with Senator Lieberman more closely, and I have personally seen his character, his courage, and his conviction. Both in tone and in substance, Senator Lieberman has been one of the most respected and effective statesmen in the history of this institution--someone who transcended politics to stand up for what he believed in

and what he believed was right on behalf of our country.

Senator Lieberman understands that neither party has a monopoly on good ideas and that the American people expect Members of both parties to work together to get things done on behalf of our country.

Senator Lieberman understands that our children will not ask us whether we were Democrats or Republicans and how good we were at that, at being a member of a party; they will ask us whether we were willing to make the tough decisions necessary to ensure that they continue to enjoy prosperity and freedom in the greatest country on Earth.

What I admire about my friend Joe Lieberman is that he is someone who always puts country first above all else. For Senator Lieberman, this has been especially true in the area of national security and homeland security.

As our Nation has encountered difficult economic headwinds at home-- over $16 trillion in debt--there have been Members of both parties who have argued for excessive cuts to our military and that we disengage from the rest of the world. Yet, in the great traditions of Presidents Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan, Senator Lieberman has made the compelling case that the United States best promotes its values and protects its citizens when we remain engaged around the world, maintaining our military strength, having the best military in the world.

Having had the chance to work with Senator Lieberman on the Senate Armed Services Committee, his commitment to our men and women in uniform has been inspiring. He has shown a deep commitment to make sure they have the best equipment they need and that we remain the strongest military in the world; and that when our soldiers come home, they receive the support they need. He has been such an amazing advocate for the military and their families.

I also appreciate that like Winston Churchill, Senator Lieberman understands the value of alliances between democracies and has spoken with moral clarity regarding the enemies of freedom. He has not hesitated to call terrorism an evil by its name and to speak out for dissidents and freedom fighters around the world.

I will never forget a trip I had the privilege of taking with him to Asia, where we had the opportunity to meet individuals who were imprisoned. And they spoke with tears in their eyes of the work Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain and others had done to speak up on their behalf.

Senator Lieberman has spoken for those who have been oppressed around the world time and time again, and he has left his legacy on this institution in making sure that America stands for our values and for people around the world who are struggling for basic human rights and freedom.

In this Chamber, he will also, of course, be remembered for the incredibly important work he did as a strong and resolute member of the Senate Armed Services Committee but also as the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He helped to lead the Federal Government's response to September 11, to those horrible attacks on our country, and every American is safer because of the work Joe Lieberman did as chairman of that committee, and the work he did on the Senate Armed Services Committee in this body--and the work I know he will continue to do when he leaves the Senate.

My friend Joe Lieberman represents the very best of public service. He has stood firm for freedom, international engagement, and American military strength. He will be remembered among Members of this body not only for his accomplishments but for the way he has conducted himself. Always a gentleman, he has conducted himself with great decency, civility, and humility.

At a time when our country faces great challenges, his quiet and effective leadership and commitment to working across party lines will be sorely missed in this body. He will certainly continue to serve as a model for all of us who remain serving in the Senate, and I know in future endeavors I will certainly seek him out to seek his advice and counsel, as we face great challenges not only here at home but also in terms of our military and the role America plays in the world.

We all admire his leadership here, and it has been a true privilege for me to have had him mentor me the last 2 years. I have learned so much from him. And, again, I think he serves as a model public servant of what it means to be committed to doing the right thing for your country.

Thank you, Madam President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee--and I appreciate your leadership in that role as well on that committee--I would like to speak for a few minutes on the National Defense Authorization Act.

In the midst of an ongoing war, with our brave sons and daughters, husbands and wives fighting in Afghanistan, our country continues to face a very serious threat from radical Islamist terrorists and other challenges and threats throughout the world. With increased threats posed by rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, it is so important that we pass the Defense Authorization Act.

I would like to take a minute to thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for their leadership and for the hard work and dedication they have shown in bringing us together around this Defense authorization. In a place where we typically have seen many times that things have come down on party lines, I can tell you that the Senate Armed Services Committee is a welcome exception to the gridlock and partisanship in Washington, and both of them have brought us together. In fact, the Defense authorization bill passed out of the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously. It reflects the committee's bipartisan commitment to making sure our troops and their families have what they need to ensure our Nation is protected.

As the ranking member of the readiness subcommittee, I have had the pleasure of working with Chairman McCaskill to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the resources they need to protect themselves and our country. At the same time, the readiness subcommittee has also worked very hard to achieve significant reforms that save taxpayer dollars without endangering our military readiness. I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman to seek additional efficiencies within the Department of Defense budget, while guarding against irresponsible cuts that would leave our troops and our Nation less prepared for future contingencies and increase the likelihood of conflict.

I also wish to recognize the work I have had the opportunity to do with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that further supports our troops, our veterans, and their families. I am proud to have worked with my colleagues across the aisle to include several very important provisions in this year's Defense Authorization Act.

During the markup, Senator Begich, Senator McCain, Senator Shaheen, Senator Vitter, and Senator Udall joined me--three Republicans and three Democrats working together--to introduce and successfully incorporate an amendment to the Defense authorization that would save $400 million by cutting off funding to the over-cost and behind- schedule Medium Extended Air Defense System, or MEADS. This is a weapons program that the Pentagon has said it will never procure, it will never happen. Yet we continue to put taxpayer dollars into this weapons system. I know that in the President's comments about the bill, he has expressed concern about this--his administration has--but at a time when we are facing grave fiscal challenges in this country, we cannot afford to spend $400 million on a weapons system that will never come to be when there are so many other needs that need to be addressed.

In another bipartisan effort, more than a dozen of my colleagues joined Senator Begich and me in ensuring that veterans buried at the Clark Veterans Cemetery in the Philippines will have the dignified and final resting place they deserve. There is still more work we have to do on this issue.

What this comes down to is when the Air Force abandoned Clark Air Force Base in 1991 in the wake of a volcanic eruption, Clark Veterans Cemetery was abandoned and the tombstones and the remains of 8,300 U.S. servicemembers and their dependents were left buried in ash and overgrown weeds. That is completely unacceptable for those who have served our Nation, that we would not ensure that this cemetery would be kept in a way that is dignified and consistent with the respect they deserve, having served our Nation.

To prevent this from ever happening again, I am pleased that the Defense authorization includes my provision, which would require the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress a plan to ensure that an appropriate Federal or private agency assumes responsibility for the continued maintenance and oversight of cemeteries located on overseas military bases after they close.

What happened here is that we left, and there was nothing in place to ensure that we would take responsibility to make sure this cemetery was maintained with dignity and respect. This provision will make sure that if we are in that position again, this will not happen.

Additionally, Senator Jack Reed and I worked together to include a provision aimed at enhancing the Department's research, treatment, education, and outreach initiatives focused on addressing the mental health needs of members of the National Guard and Reserve.

In addition to the provisions I have just mentioned which we have been able to put in this bill on a bipartisan basis, I would also like to talk about some additional amendments that have already been included in the Defense authorization. Here are some of the provisions or reporting requirements that are included within this bill:

First, requiring the Pentagon to complete a full statement of budget resources by 2014 to improve financial stewardship at the Pentagon.

This has been an issue we have been working on for too long. It is time that the Pentagon is able to undergo an audit, and this requirement that is contained within the Defense Authorization Act is consistent with what Secretary Panetta has said he is seeking to do, to make sure the Pentagon can complete a full statement of budget resources by 2014.

When we are at a time when we are $16 trillion in debt, the fact that we are not able to audit the Pentagon, aren't able to really take that information and make critical decisions on what we need versus what we would want to do and what we can afford to do, this is very important, that the Pentagon get to a position where it can be audited. This provision ensures that this critical step is in this bill, and I am hopeful it will get passed.

Additional provisions that will save millions of dollars in acquisitions by prohibiting the Department of Defense from using cost- type contracts for the production of major defense acquisition programs are in this bill.

We can't afford the years where we are paying much more for weapons systems than we can afford and it takes much longer to produce them. We can improve our acquisition systems, and by prohibiting the Department of Defense from using cost-type contracts for the production of major defense acquisition programs, this is a very important step.

There are also provisions in this bill to ensure that our nuclear deterrent remains strong as we modernize our nuclear arsenal.

Without a nuclear deterrent, if you look at what is happening around the world, with Iran trying to acquire the

capability of having a nuclear weapon, with North Korea having that capability, it is very important that we have that deterrent in our country and that it remains modern and able if, God forbid--we hope we will never have to use that, but it is a very strong deterrent to rogue actors around the world that are seeking this capability.

In addition, there are provisions that increase oversight of the Department of Defense's proposed reduction in the number of soldiers and marines and looks at the issue of minimizing involuntary separations.

This is one of the things we are facing right now. With the defense cuts, some of our men and women in uniform who have served multiple tours on our behalf are now in a position where they may receive a pink slip. We owe it to them to make sure we minimize the situation where they come home, they are given a pink slip, and then they are put in a situation where they are looking for a job. We need to make sure we do this in a way that they can assimilate into the civilian society without being left unemployed, given the sacrifices they have made for our country.

There are other provisions I would like to highlight briefly. There is a provision to ensure that military amputees have access to top- quality prostheses and prosthetic sockets. Whether servicemembers who require prosthesis choose to leave the military or continue to serve, they deserve the best, top-quality prostheses and prosthetic sockets, and included in this mark is a provision that will ensure there are standards to make certain they receive the best. They deserve it.

In addition, there is a provision that will require that the Navy let us know what our current military capabilities require in terms of the number of ships and submarines that are in our fleet. The Chief of Naval Operations testified last year the Navy needs 313 ships and submarines to meet its strategic requirements. Right now we only have 285. If sequestration goes forward, we are going to have dramatically less. Right now, we can only meet 61 percent of attack submarine requirements set by our combatant commanders. The administration has said we are going to shift to the Asia Pacific region given the rise in investments China is making in its navy, so I am simply asking that the Navy tell us what they need to make sure our country is protected.

We have conflicting information, and it is important that we have a strong and robust Navy to make sure America is protected from the threats we face around the world.

In conclusion, I want to just thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for all their hard work and leadership on the Armed Services Committee. This is a bill of which we can be proud. I am pleased that last week the Senate adopted my amendment to ban terrorists who are being held at Guantanamo Bay from being transferred to U.S. soil. I know that is something the American people feel strongly about.

I know the bill, overall, will continue to have debate on a number of amendments, but it is a bill that is very important to our servicemembers--the men and women in uniform who serve us--and their families. They deserve the very best. They deserve to know we will pass this bill to make sure they have the equipment and the support they need given the sacrifices they have made for our country.

Again, I thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for all their hard work.

I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to talk this morning about an amendment I had intended to offer but I am not going to be offering today because there is an important portion in the House Armed Services Committee that covers my concerns. That was the amendment I had drafted that is cosponsored by Senators Lieberman and Collins. I appreciate their support.

My amendment would establish an east coast ballistic missile defense site to make sure the east coast of our country is protected from missile threats. Let me describe why I thought it was very important. My amendment would have established both a study on three potential locations for an east coast missile defense site, an environmental impact study, and a plan for deployment of that site.

Where we are right now, unfortunately, is we have Iran, and no one disagrees that Iran has an active ballistic development program. They can already reach Eastern Europe. Many analysts believe Iran will be able to develop the capacity to strike the mainland United States with an ICBM by 2015. Our existing missile defense sites right now that protect this country have the capacity--if, for example, North Korea were to launch an ICBM toward the west coast, we would have an opportunity for two shots at that missile to protect our country.

In other words, if the President of the United States got an awful call that a missile was coming from North Korea toward the western coast of our country, he would have an opportunity to have one shot, a look, and then a shot to take that missile down to protect our country; two shots to take the missile down.

But as it stands right now, when it comes to the east coast of our country, including the Capital, Washington, DC, the center of our government where we stand right now, my home State of New Hampshire, New York, all those population centers, if Iran were to develop the capacity to have an ICBM, where we are today is we would only get one shot at that missile if it were to be shot at the eastern coast of the United States instead of a shoot, look, shoot that we have if North Korea were to shoot a missile toward the western part of our country.

I think this is deeply troubling. We should be developing that capacity to make sure our country is fully protected.

I would like to address others who have looked at this. This year the National Research Council recommended an additional ballistic missile site in the United States in the Northeast to more effectively protect the Eastern United States and Canada, particularly against Iranian ICBM threats should they emerge. That is, of course, because some analysts believe they could develop that capacity as soon as 2015.

The markup coming out of the House Armed Services Committee already contains language and authorization for the actual establishment of an east coast missile site. That is one of the reasons I will not be offering my amendment today to conduct this study on environmental impact and also planned deployment because the House version already contains a requirement that an east coast missile defense site be developed.

Some would say--in fact, one thing I would like to address is that we may hear from the administration that they are working on a hedging-- and a different hedging strategy--to make sure the east coast is protected. And that hedging strategy would be plans to deploy the SM-3 Block IIB missile in Poland. But where we are today with the SM-3 Block IIB shows why it is important for us to use technology that already exists to protect the east coast; that is, because the SM-3 Block IIB is only a plan on a piece of paper. It doesn't exist yet, and there have been concerns relayed about its development and, in fact, the development of the SM-3 Block IIB has already been delayed to 2021, which does not meet where we are with the potential that Iran could develop ICBM capacity by 2015. It just would not work.

But what we do know is that we already have technology that exists, and if we were to deploy a missile defense site now on the east coast, that we would get the opportunity to have a look, shoot, look on the east coast were Iran to launch a missile toward the east coast of our country.

We only need to look at what happened recently in the conflict with Hamas, the missiles that were being shot into Israel and the Iron Dome system to understand the importance of missile defense. Now, that is a system that focuses on short-range missiles, but we all saw the number of civilians that could be protected by the capacity of having a robust missile defense system, and I can't imagine why we wouldn't want to be in the position to make sure the east coast of our country would be as protected as the west coast when it comes to an emerging threat from Iran.

There is no question that the more we hear about the behavior of Iran, the more troubled we should be as a country. Not only do they have a robust missile development program, but we all know they are also making efforts to acquire the capability of having a nuclear weapon.

Now is the time for us to act, not to find ourselves in 2015 with no plans as to how to deploy an east coast missile defense site to make sure the east coast of our country has the same protection as the west coast. Now is the time to act because, in addition, in 2012 in the defense authorization, we asked the administration to submit a plan to us as to how they would hedge, a hedging strategy to make sure the east coast was as protected as the west coast.

They have yet to submit that plan, and so now is the time for us to make

sure we go forward with technology that already exists to ensure that the east coast of our country is protected.

I cannot imagine the President of the United States being in a position as we go forward in our country where, if a missile were coming from Iran toward our Capital, he would be told we only have one shot to take that missile down versus if a missile were coming to the west coast of our country in L.A. from North Korea, that we would have two shots to take that missile down.

We want to make sure our country is protected. The threat from Iran is a very real threat. That is why I was going to offer this amendment, to make sure we had a study, an environmental impact analysis and a plan that the Department of Defense could use to deploy an east coast missile defense site.

But my colleagues in the House, including Representative Turner, have already addressed this issue directly with the requirement contained in the House mark of the Armed Services Committee. I think it is very important what they have done.

I thank the Chair very much for giving me the opportunity to speak today.

Yes. Thank you.

Mr. President, I join my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, in paying tribute to and honoring the life and legacy of Warren Rudman. Warren Rudman was a Senator from New Hampshire whose intellect, courage, and conviction brought great honor to this institution.

Warren Rudman embodied the very best of New Hampshire: frugal, fiercely independent, and totally committed to the common good. He didn't aspire to be a politician, but when he saw his country was headed in the wrong direction, he stepped up to serve, and his focus was always doing the right thing for our country and the people of New Hampshire.

It wasn't the first time Warren Rudman had been called to duty. He had already distinguished himself in the U.S. Army, serving as a combat platoon leader and company commander during the Korean War. It was there that he saw the horrors of war and became convinced of the need for American military supremacy and strength. For his brave service he was presented the Bronze Star.

Following his return home, Warren Rudman settled in Nashua, his hometown--also my hometown--where he raised his family. After completing law school, Warren entered private practice, where he remained until he was called to serve once again--only this time he was recruited to bring his energy and ideas to New Hampshire State government. Warren quickly proved himself as Governor Peterson's chief of staff. Then, at age 39, he was appointed to serve as New Hampshire's attorney general.

I am very proud to have also served as New Hampshire's attorney general. In my view, Warren Rudman is probably the greatest attorney general to serve in New Hampshire's history. He modernized the office of the attorney general to meet the needs of a changing State. He was a tough-on-crime attorney general who personally tried criminal cases.

Warren Rudman earned a reputation for standing firm on principle even when it wasn't popular. It was perfect practice for the battles he would later fight in Washington on behalf of the people of this country.

Warren ran for the Senate in 1980 because the issues he cared about were being neglected. He believed in a strong national defense and he saw the Nation's fiscal situation careening dangerously off course. He was worried about the threat that presented to our country's future.

As a first-term Senator, Warren Rudman truly made his mark, and that is certainly not easy to do. But it showed his character, his leadership, and his persistence because Warren Rudman's name will forever be linked with his landmark effort to rein in Federal spending. The Gramm-Rudman legislation was born of the bold idea the Federal Government shouldn't spend beyond its means. When it was signed into law, annual deficits were $200 billion. Imagine how much better off we would be if we had heeded Warren Rudman's warnings and truly followed through on the work he did in this body.

Warren's zeal for responsible government went beyond reducing spending. As a former prosecutor, he was seen by his colleagues as someone who was committed to fairness, truth, and independence. When the Iran Contra scandal erupted in 1986, the Senate moved to investigate and Warren Rudman was selected to serve as the committee's top Republican. At the outset, he made one thing clear, and that always guided Warren Rudman in everything he did. This is what he said:

``I consider myself an American first and a Republican second.''

That was a commitment he kept, helping to lead a nonpartisan inquiry that pursued the facts. He saw himself as asking tough questions on behalf of the American people and he expected answers. With the Nation in turmoil, Warren Rudman stood firm for the rule of law. His rigorous commitment to uncovering the truth brought credit to this body and great pride to the people of New Hampshire.

Of course, representing their interests was always Warren Rudman's true passion. Warren Rudman had New Hampshire in his blood and he brought New Hampshire common sense to Capitol Hill. While Warren was at the center of some of the most consequential debates in Washington, he always put his constituents first. In fact, legislation he authored to help small businesses continues to benefit entrepreneurs to this day in the Granite State.

Shortly after arriving in the Senate, the first bill he introduced on behalf of the State of New Hampshire and our country was a bill called the Small Business Innovation Research Act, which was aimed at bolstering small high-tech companies in New Hampshire and across the Nation. To this day, the SBIR Program continues to help small defense and technology companies through competitive grants, and it has been a very important program. That was the idea of Warren Rudman the day he came to the Senate, which is so impressive, and Senator Shaheen and I have proudly worked together across party lines to make sure this important program continues to be effective.

Warren Rudman will be remembered as a statesman, someone who loved his country and wanted to make it better. In bidding farewell to the Senate in 1992, he expressed gratitude for the opportunity to serve with such talented colleagues in this esteemed body. He also expressed his hopes for the future of this body, and this is what he said: ``It is a very special place, with very special people, and I hope in the coming years the institution can coalesce to bring those talents together in a bipartisan way to do what is good for America.''

As our country continues to face great challenges, may all of us remain mindful of Warren Rudman's wise words and the powerful example he set for this body. Granite Staters throughout all New Hampshire mourn his loss, but we will never forget his legacy as an esteemed representative of the people of New Hampshire and someone who always put America first.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so I may call up my amendment No. 3245, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I rise in support of my amendment No. 3245.

Last year, in the Defense authorization bill we had in it a prohibition that would prohibit transferring those who are held in military custody at the Guantanamo Bay facility from there to the United States of America. This year, as the language of the Defense authorization stands, there is no such prohibition, making it possible for the administration, should it choose, to transfer from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility 166 foreign enemy combatants who are being currently detained at Guantanamo. I am deeply concerned that the Defense authorization does not include this prohibition of transfer language, and that is why I have brought forth this amendment.

I am also pleased that this amendment is being cosponsored by the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Chambliss, as well as Senators Inhofe, Graham, Kirk, and Sessions.

We have at Guantanamo Bay a top-rate facility that allows for the secure and humane detention and interrogation of foreign terrorist detainees, including right now the mastermind of the attacks of our country on 9/11.

I don't think anyone in this body would dispute that when our country was attacked on September 11, that was an act of war against the United States of America, and we remain, unfortunately, at war with members of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations that want to kill Americans and our allies simply for what we believe in and for what we stand for in this country. This is a war, and those who were killed on September 11 were victims of this war.

One of the concerns I have is that when we are at war, the priority always has to be to detain those who are captured, pursuant to that war, in military custody.

We have at Guantanamo Bay a top-rate facility. I have visited it personally. Those who are held there are treated humanely. It is a very secure facility that is not on our homeland, and it is very well protected by our military.

Also at that facility is a top-rate court, where military commissions can be held for those who are charged who are held at Guantanamo Bay. Why is that important? Because when you are at war, those aren't mere criminals--they are not mere criminals who have committed a burglary in our neighborhood. They have committed acts of terror against our country, and they are very dangerous individuals, many of whom would attempt do so again were they released. That is another reason why I have brought this amendment forward, because I think it is very important that the American people be safe and secure and that those individuals who are being held there--many of them who are tremendously dangerous--be held in a secure facility that is not on our soil.

In 2009, the Attorney General discussed and sought to bring Khalid Shaikh Mohammed--the mastermind of 9/11--to trial in New York City. The American people and members of both sides of the aisle objected to having the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York City. As a result, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is being held at Guantanamo Bay. He will be tried by a military commission. But that demonstration made it clear the American people do not want foreign members of al-Qaida and associated terrorist organizations being brought to the United States when we have a secure facility at Guantanamo Bay that we have spent resources to update, that is very humane.

In fact, in February of 2012, the Washington Post asked: Do you approve of the decision to keep open the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects? Seventy percent of the American people who answered that survey said: Yes, we approve of it.

I want people to understand whom we are talking about transferring from Guantanamo Bay to the United States of America and understand the individuals and some of the background of those who are being held at Guantanamo Bay, coming to a neighborhood near you.

This is, of course, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is being held at Guantanamo Bay. He is often called KSM. He claims to have personally decapitated American journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002, and he admitted to playing a role in over 30 terrorist plots. Some of these include a 1995 plot to blow up 12 U.S. airliners flying from Southeast Asia to the United States for which he was indicted the following year; the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; a plot to hit towers in Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles, New York's Empire State Building, and nuclear power stations. KSM also claimed he was involved in a plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II and President Bill Clinton. He, of course, met Osama bin Laden in the 1980s, and in 1999 KSM persuaded Osama bin Laden to support the horrible acts that occurred on our soil on September 11.

Mullah Mohammad Fazil is another individual being held at Guantanamo Bay. Fazil is suspected in the death of CIA Officer Johnny ``Mike'' Spann in 2001, the first casualty of the Afghanistan war. He was deemed by U.S. officials as a high threat to the United States. It was assessed that he would likely rejoin the Taliban and participate in operations against U.S. and coalition forces if released. He was at one time the most senior Taliban leader in northern Afghanistan. In fact, he was so senior he once threatened Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Fazil has been implicated in the murder of thousands of Shiites in northern Afghanistan under Taliban control, and he is wanted by the United Nations for possible war crimes.

Another individual being held at Guantanamo Bay, Mohammad Nabi, is tied to a 2002 attack that killed two Americans and maintains loyalty to al-Qaida.

Let's be clear. There is a 28-percent recidivism rate of those we have released from Guantanamo Bay back to foreign nationals who have gotten back into the battle against our country. These are individuals who have not renounced the war on terror. The recidivism record speaks for itself. They have gotten into the battle. They still want to be involved in terrorist activities. They still want to be a member of al- Qaida or other terrorist groups and commit acts against our country and our allies.

Again, Mohammed Nabi is tied to the 2002 attack that killed two Americans. He maintains loyalty to al-Qaida. Yet some of my colleagues, if you think about it, would insist in other amendments we are dealing with today that he be treated as a common criminal.

One of the concerns I have is that if we close Guantanamo and we transfer all of those individuals to the U.S. courts, will they then claim all of the rights here in the United States? And God forbid any of them had to be released here as a result of challenges they would bring.

Nabi was a senior Taliban official also who helped finance the Taliban and smuggled weapons used against our troops. Nabi maintained weapons stockpiles and helped smuggle fighters and weapons to attack our warfighters. He is reportedly loyal to the Pakistan-based Haqqani terrorist network. The Haqqani network, of course, has been designated by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization, and the Haqqanis are loyal to the Taliban and behind some of the largest attacks against the United States, Afghan, and coalition troops and interests in Afghanistan. He was also a member of a joint al-Qaida/ Taliban cell in Khost, Afghanistan, that was involved in attacks against the United States and coalition forces. He continues to have issues with his behavior and how he has conducted himself.

He is just one of the individuals who, if we do not have this prohibition, may be transferred to the United States of America.

Those are just three of the individuals who are present at Guantanamo Bay who could be coming to a neighborhood near you. Some may cite--one of the reasons I brought forth this amendment as well is some may cite a GAO report saying that we could somehow transfer these individuals here. Let's be clear what that GAO report says.

I ask this body to agree to this amendment and not bring these terrorists here to the United States of America.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 2 minutes to respond, and then I will defer to my colleague from South Carolina.

I don't have any time remaining. OK.

Then I defer.

Mr. President, I would like to respond briefly.

I have great respect for the Senator from California. The distinction here in the cases she has been citing--the disposition of them--I think is a very important distinction. Certainly we have good Federal court systems. They are designed, though, for criminals and for crimes. Guantanamo Bay is a secure facility on which we have spent substantial resources to make a top-grade facility. I visited there. That is for terrorists when there is an act of war against our country, and those individuals who are being held there have committed acts that warrant them being held in military detention because of the terrorist acts I have outlined and the individuals involved. There is a big distinction, and the American people do not want those individuals brought here to the United States of America.

With that, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, may I ask how much time remains on our side and on the other side?

There is 17 minutes remaining in opposition?

Mr. President, I rise to agree with my colleague Senator Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, in his interpretation of the Hamdi decision with regard to the review of the current amendment pending before us. The Feinstein amendment includes different language than the amendment that was brought forward and defeated in this body last year. The language says in 2(b)(1) that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority, shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States, apprehended in the United States, unless an act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.

I do view, as does my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, the Hamdi decision that was decided before our U.S. Supreme Court as rendering an opinion that the current authorization for the use of military force that is in effect for our country gives explicit congressional authority for the detention of individuals such as in the case of Hamdi. He was an American citizen engaged in the battle against our country and would fall underneath the authorization for military force. In the Hamdi decision, the Court said that the AUMF, which has currently been approved by Congress, having the full force and effect of law, gives explicit congressional authorization for such detention.

I too believe, as Senator Levin has said, under that authorization, the Hamdi decision would be interpreted similarly if an individual who was a covered individual--a member who was covered by the authorization for military force but was nevertheless a United States citizen--was caught here committing an act of terrorism in this country. Our Supreme Court has already interpreted that in Hamdi in such a way. I wanted to add my support for his interpretation of the current Feinstein language in that way.

I wish also to say in response to the arguments of some of my colleagues that if the argument that is being made is this, that if you are an American citizen who is captured in this country committing an act of terrorism against our country and collaborating with al-Qaida, committing belligerent acts in this country, then you should be held under the law of war. If you are not, then we will have to give you Miranda rights. We will have to tell you you have the right to remain silent.

Let me remind you, in those situations, can you imagine if an American citizen had been one of the collaborators of 9/11, would we want to tell a member of someone who had committed an act like 9/11 against us--an act of war against this country--the first thing you hear is you have the right to be silent? Our goal is we have to be there to gather intelligence to see if there is another attack coming. Is it coming to the Pentagon, is it coming to the White House, is it coming to that second tower? Then we can protect American lives.

That is the difference between war and common crime. That is an important distinction that has been recognized long before--with all respect to my colleague from Kentucky--in World War II in In Re: Quirin. Our U.S. Supreme Court in World War II recognized this authority, the difference between the law of war. In that case an American citizen who collaborated with the Nazis was held under the law of war because our country was at war.

I would also wish to point out that this would only cover under the current law authorized by this Congress. It would not apply to someone who is holding ammunition or someone who is paying with cash. It only applies to a person who has planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attack that occurred on 9/11 or harbored those responsible for the attacks, or a person who has a part or substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partner, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or directly supported such hostilities in aid of enemy forces against our country.

That is very different than some of the examples that were cited here. It is

called being a member of al-Qaida, being involved in September 11, being a member of the Taliban and committing belligerent acts against this country. That is terrorism.

Let me point out what I think is the most absurd distinction of all. This is Anwar al-Awlaki. He is someone who is a U.S. citizen. He is someone who was an influential leader in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. He advocated for violent jihad. He was involved in a dozen terror investigations. He was alleged to be involved in killing Americans and collaborating to kill our allies. On September 30, 2011, it was reported that al-Awlaki was killed by the CIA in a drone strike in Yemen. Yet it is being interpreted, as we have heard by some of my colleagues represented here, if the Feinstein amendment were interpreted the way they have interpreted, if al-Awlaki made it to America to commit these terrorist acts, he gets his Miranda rights. He gets all his rights here. But yet if he is in Yemen to do these acts, to try to kill Americans and our allies, then we can use a drone attack to him. But if he makes it to America--which, by the way, the terrorists want to make it to America; 9/11 is Exhibit A of that--why do we want to be in a position to read them their Miranda rights, tell them you have the right to remain silent? Our priority there has to be protecting American lives. That is the distinction between the law of war and a common criminal in this country.

By the way, there are protections under the law. It is the right of habeas corpus where you do have a right to challenge your detention before the Federal court through appeals with counsel. That is certainly a protection that we have respected in this country for a long time.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and congratulate Scontsas Fine Jewelry and Home Decor, a small business in my hometown of Nashua, NH, as it celebrates its 100th year in business.

Scontsas, which began as a shoe shining and repair business and hat blocking service, is now a third generation, family owned small business that specializes in fine jewelry and home gifts and decoration. A century ago, a Greek immigrant named George J. Scontsas first opened his doors at 173 Main Street in Nashua, and ever since, his family's business has remained a permanent fixture at this same downtown location. The Scontsas legacy, by any measure, is a testament to the entrepreneurial spirit that makes America great.

In an effort to expand his customer base, George began stocking greeting cards, and by the mid-1940's, his store became the first Hallmark store in Nashua. The Scontsas family business continued to expand by selling children's toys, books, yarn, and gifts.

In 1974, George's son Peter, and his wife Joan, purchased deMontigny Jewelers in the adjacent building. Since Peter Scontsas' passing in 1995, his son Phillip and daughter-in-law Amalia have served as the principal owners of the business. Together, the Scontsas family developed a new department within the family store, featuring home and garden decor.

Since its inception, Scontsas has focused not only on growing bigger, but also on growing better. The reasons for the Scontsas family's success are many. Chief among them are the family's commitment to building enduring relationships with their customers and their strong community involvement. Scontsas Fine Jewelry and Home Decor prides itself on treating every customer like a member of the family.

In typical fashion, the Scontsas family decided to celebrate their business' 100th birthday by giving back to the Nashua community in a series of events this year. The year long celebration showcased their strong roots in the community while promoting their products. I had the pleasure of attending the city of Nashua's Annual Holiday Stroll this past weekend, where the Scontsas family unveiled their limited edition 100 Year Holiday ornament for their loyal customers.

As Nashua helps the Scontsas' celebrate a century of family, business, and community, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Scontsas Fine Jewelry and Home Decor's 100th anniversary.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my Air Force legislative fellow, Active-Duty Maj. Alison ``Babs'' Kamataris, receive floor privileges for the remainder of the consideration of S. 3254, the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, today I want to honor my Air Force legislative fellow, active duty MAJ Alison ``Babs'' Kamataris. For the past year, Babs has been an invaluable member of my legislative team.

Babs has served with honor and distinction in the United States Air Force for nearly 15 years. She is an accomplished Air Force intelligence officer--representing the best our military has to offer. Her career has included a tour in Turkey and two tours in South Korea, as well as six deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. In Congress, she has been a critical asset to my legislative team, where she has used her tremendous knowledge and experience to help me in my efforts to serve those who serve us, and ensure that our brave servicemembers have the resources they need to carry out their missions and protect our country.

Babs was a natural fit for our office. She grew up in Belmont, NH and attended Norwich University in Vermont. She possesses that rugged, hardworking, do-it-yourself attitude for which Granite Staters are known. We also share a personal connection as Air Force families. Not only has Babs served our country in the Air Force with distinction, but her husband has too. Like my husband Joe, Babs' husband Andy is an A-10 pilot. In fact, Andy deployed to Afghanistan for 4 months this year while Babs worked in my office and served as a conscientious mother to her beautiful 3-year-old daughter, Taylor. Babs and her family deserve our deep admiration and gratitude for their service to our country.

As Babs' tenure in our office comes to a conclusion, we are sad to see her go. We will always consider Babs and her entire Air Force family as part of our team. Babs will continue to serve our Nation well in positions of increasing responsibility. I look forward to watching her career closely. Babs and Andy are truly the best our country has to offer. I and my staff wish her the very best in her next assignment and beyond.

I would answer the Senator from South Carolina by saying if we do not establish a select committee and bring everyone together, what you can envision is an incomplete story from each.

First of all, we know that CIA sources put out a timeline for the CIA. You have the State Department talking about prior security requests and their view on it and e-mails that they sent on it. And then you have the Department of Defense talking about putting out another timeline. Where you are left is: No investigation would be conducted in that way, from your most basic incident to this, which is, of course, where four brave Americans were murdered during what appears to be a terrorist attack.

So how are we then going to follow up to make sure we get the complete picture for the American people to make sure it does not happen again, so we can understand what went wrong, and so we can understand what lessons we need to learn from this?

But if each committee--the Senate Foreign Relations Committee deals with the State Department piece and the Senate Armed Services Committee deals with the Armed Services piece--meaning, why was the greatest military in the world not in a position to respond when the attack occurred over 7 hours?--that is an important question that has to be answered in the military context--and then also thinking about the intelligence piece, the intelligence beforehand about the prior attacks--what was happening at the annex? What response, what information was provided?--also to the President, in terms of the prior attacks, so that he could be informed to make sure that the consulate was protected, and why was the consulate not protected?

If we conduct this separately we will not have a full picture for the American people in order to make sure that we take the lessons learned so that this does not happen again. We saw that. That is why we had a post 9/11 Commission, because many agencies were involved in wanting to get to the bottom of it. This is so important with four brave Americans who have been killed. So many more questions are raised than there are answers right now.

Most of all, we need to make sure that the complete picture of facts comes forward. As the Senator from South Carolina said, many people have very different impressions about this, and there are a lot of conspiracy theories. So a full bipartisan committee that has full jurisdiction over every area of this to come up with a complete picture and recommendations makes sense, and it is a way for us to answer these important questions for the American people and, of course, the families of those who lost their loved ones in Benghazi.

Finally, I would say, with respect to my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, today the President did say that with respect to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Sunday shows, that she did that on behalf of the White House. Well, one of the questions that needs to be answered is, within hours there were e-mails sent to the White House from the State Department that explained that a terrorist group, Ansar al-Sharia, was taking responsibility for this attack. So I think a question that needs to be answered is, why then would the Ambassador to the U.N. on behalf of the White House, 5 days after the attack--even though this e-mail went to the White House within hours stating that a terrorist group is taking responsibility--go on every major news station and say this was a spontaneous reaction to a video? She expressly said: This was not a preplanned or premeditated attack. Why was that done?

I think those are important questions that need to be addressed by this committee as well because, clearly, this was not what happened. It was a misstatement of what occurred, and we need to understand why that was done. The American people deserve answers when you have four brave Americans who were murdered in a terrorist attack.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from South Carolina. He has really led the effort on this incredibly important resolution. I also thank my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, for his leadership on this issue.

The bipartisan nature of this resolution tells us very clearly that this really is the policy of this Congress and how important this issue is for our country. This resolution will ensure that we give a clear message to Iran that it is not our policy and that the United States and the world will not accept Iran acquiring the capability of having a nuclear weapon. We understand that it would make the Middle East a more dangerous place than it is now and would cause an arms race in that part of the world. In addition, it would also cause us to be in a position in which one of our strongest allies in the Middle East, Israel, is threatened with annihilation because that is exactly what the Iranian regime has said.

Most importantly, it will endanger our own country if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon because Iran is incredibly hostile to the United States of America. Iran participates with various terrorist groups, including Hezbollah. One

of the greatest risks we face is that the regime itself wouldn't use the nuclear weapon; they would just give it to a terrorist group who could hit any one of our allies. They could use it to harm us and our country, and then, of course, the world changes. We cannot allow this to happen, and it is very important to have 82 Senators sponsoring this resolution.

I wish to talk briefly about the Paul amendment that is pending before this body. How we act on this amendment, as my colleague from Georgia so eloquently said, will define the foreign policy of the United States of America. I wish to state my strong opposition to the Paul amendment because I am very concerned that if we pass the Paul amendment, then we are sending the very message to the radical Islamists and the terrorists of the world that they want to hear from us, which is that we will withdraw.

Let's be clear on what their goal is when they attack us. They don't want us to be engaged. They would like the Middle East to become a seventh-century, Taliban-style government that is a threat to our country.

In my view, for us to withdraw now, we would put ourselves in a position where, for example, the amendment is so broadly drafted that even if one of our ally's embassies were attacked, such as Israel, we would have to withdraw aid and it would send the absolute wrong message. It would be to the detriment of the safety of the United States of America.

I understand that my colleague Senator Paul is well intentioned, but every time we have withdrawn, people have died and the world has not become safer and the battle comes here. We don't want the battle to be here. We don't want any of these elements to be in our country. We can't forget what happened to us on September 11.

As my colleagues have eloquently stated before, our only tools can't be our military. The reason we have so many of our present and former military leaders standing up and saying they oppose the Paul amendment is because they understand that by engaging with these countries through the small foreign aid budget we have, we can prevent conflict. We can actually be in a position where we are engaged and we are sending the message to the radical Islamist terrorists that, no, the United States of America will not back off. They cannot put us in a position where they can bring the battle to our soil. We will not be defeated by them.

I think if we were to pass this amendment from my colleague, no matter how well intentioned it is, we would only be empowering those radical elements. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Paul amendment.

I also believe it very much relates to this containment resolution for the following reasons: We see Iran right now ignoring what the U.N. has asked of it, ignoring what the good people of the world want to have happen in Syria. In fact, Iran is supporting Hezbollah. They are arming and training Asad's forces in Syria. They are providing weapons to insurgents in Afghanistan who are killing our troops. They are engaged with radical elements in Iraq. If we look at the whole course of events, we can imagine that Iran will cheer if we pass an amendment in which we say that we back off our commitment to Pakistan, our commitment to Egypt, and our commitment to Libya and other areas around the world. God forbid if one of our other allies' embassies were attacked.

Most importantly, as my colleagues have said, Iran would cheer if the Paul amendment passes because it would actually break the Camp David Accords in which we agreed as a country to provide aid to Egypt. It would also make Israel less safe, and there is nothing in the world that Iran wants more than to have Israel be less safe. In fact, they have stated very clearly that their goal is to annihilate Israel from the face of the Earth.

We cannot allow them to get nuclear weapons. They are marching closer and closer to this capability. Senator Blumenthal told us about the enrichment of the uranium. This is not the level of enrichment used for a powerplant. It is being enriched to have the capability of having a nuclear weapon.

They have created more and more centrifuges despite us asking them to stop, despite the sanctions we have put in place, all for the possibility of having that nuclear weapon they could use that would change the world, not to mention what they have said about our friend Israel, that they would seek to annihilate Israel.

The world is a very dangerous place. If we allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, this is a game changer for the world. That is why this resolution is so incredibly important.

I very much appreciate the leadership on both sides of the aisle in support of this resolution, and my colleague from South Carolina for bringing this forward, because we need to tell the world we are not going to allow this game changer to happen. Iran needs to hear a very clear message from us as a Congress, backing up our President, that we will not allow for the containment of a nuclear-armed Iran, for the safety of the world.

Finally, we need to let our friends in Israel know, when Prime Minister Netanyahu said on September 16 that ``those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel,'' I say to our friends in Israel: Please know that by passing this resolution, we stand with you. We will work with you to make sure the tyrannical regime in Iran never gets that weapon of mass destruction that could very much change the safety of the Middle East, the safety of your country, as well as our own country and the world.

With that, I yield for my colleague from South Carolina.

Mr. President, our troops are fighting and being attacked in Afghanistan. Iran marches toward the capability of having a nuclear weapon. Terrorists have been murdering our diplomats. Innocent civilians are being murdered in Syria by a despotic regime. The world is a dangerous place.

President Obama, stop leading from behind. President Obama, lead this effort. Right now our military faces devastating cuts about which your own Secretary of Defense has said we would be shooting ourselves in the head, that we would be undermining our national security for generations. We have heard what is happening in the world. Lead. Be the Commander in Chief. Your leadership has been absent. You have been AWOL on this critical issue and our troops and our Nation deserve better.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into this colloquy with my colleagues.

It is an honor certainly to speak after the Senator from Alabama, who is the ranking Republican

on the Senate Budget Committee. He knows better than anyone else here, as my colleague from South Dakota said, had we done a budget for our country, we wouldn't find ourselves in a situation such as this, where we are going to put our national security at risk. It has been over 3 years since this body has done a budget. I think it is outrageous. Having been elected in 2010, I am so angry about that, I have signed up to support the bill that says we shouldn't get paid until we have a budget because where we end up is with this sequestration deal.

This is a lesson we should learn when we have an absence of leadership, when we have a majority leader who thinks it is foolish to have a budget, when we have absence of leadership from our Commander in Chief, who doesn't think this is a priority to resolve. The President should be calling all of us to the table to resolve this because of national security. Without resolving it, we end up putting our country at risk. The foremost responsibility we have in representing the American people under our Constitution is to keep them safe. If we don't do that, we have nothing else.

We have seen the events over the last few days, as Senator McCain has described them. He is the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee and certainly someone known as being more knowledgeable about national security than anyone else in this body. I believe he is right. It is a dangerous time in the world right now. We are faced with Iran trying to acquire nuclear capability, we have the Middle East unraveling right now, and there is an absence of American leadership, unfortunately.

If we take, in addition to the $487 billion in reductions we are already planning for the Department of Defense, another $500 billion off that, with what we see happening around the world and the risks to our country--terrorists who still want to kill us for who we are and what we believe in--then as our own Secretary of Defense has said, this sequestration will be catastrophic, leading to a hollow force, shooting ourselves in the head. That is what our Secretary of Defense has said. Irresponsible.

Yes, we did. In fact, I was at the same major defense employer in my State on Monday the same employer we went to--BAE.

They say they are worried about sequestration because there are thousands of jobs at stake in New Hampshire. But more important, there is the capacity to make sure our troops have the very best equipment, the very best technology, and that we can prevent attacks on our country. When we send our troops into harm's way, we need to know they are protected. We have a responsibility to them.

There are jobs at stake and there is safety to our troops. When we talk about hollowing out our force, we mean putting our troops at risk and, finally, not only that, but we think about our safety. So there are real jobs at stake. As the Senator from Arizona has said, my State estimates 3,600 jobs on the defense end and over 1 million jobs in this country.

Let's face it, I saw the workers, I have talked to them, and they are very worried we are not going to take up our responsibility; that there is an absence of leadership. Where is the Commander in Chief on this? Of all the things the President has responsibility for, this cannot be punted until after an election. This should not be used as a bargaining chip for other goals he wants to accomplish--increasing taxes in this country. He should be at the table right now. We are all willing to sit down and listen to ideas and to compromise with the other side, but we need the leadership of our President to do that.

I understand the President may be too busy campaigning to do that, but this is too important to leave until after an election.

If the Senator from Arizona will yield, I too would call that hypocrisy. I mean, when there is no plan in the Senate for the fiscal state of the country, when the other side seems unwilling to actually do the work of the Budget Committee, when the majority leader calls it foolish--and by the way, when the President's own budget gets zero votes--

It has. We have to do a budget, I would say to the Senators from Alabama and South Dakota, for our country. And we need to make sure that we protect our national security. That is why this problem has to be solved now. We need leadership from the President as Commander in Chief.

I would point out, in response to the comments of the Senator from South Dakota, not only has the Department of Defense ignored this law of producing a plan as to how they are going to implement sequestration; the administration went so far as to have the Department of Labor issue an order saying: Employers, don't comply with the law of the Warren Act to tell employees that your job may be at risk and issue a layoff notice.

That is how far the administration is going in not wanting to take this issue head on. But it is too important to the American people. We have got to resolve it. We are willing to try to resolve it. I am the cosponsor of another bill that would come up with alternative spending reductions to resolve it. We have got to do it now. We owe this to the American people. We owe this to our men and women in uniform.

Again, if we do a budget and we do what is right for our country, we would never find ourselves in this situation.

I see the Republican leader here. We certainly wish to hear from the Republican leader and would end this colloquy and yield back our time to the leader.

Mr. President, I want to follow up on the comments of the distinguished ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee who, of course, through his own service and sacrifice for our country knows too well how important it is for us to stand with our men and women in uniform. I wanted to follow up on what he said.

This body is about to go out and adjourn next week without passing a Defense authorization bill. It would be the first time in over 50 years in the history of our country. There is no plan that we have heard from the majority leader as to when we will take up this incredibly important legislation for our country.

What Senator McCain has already outlined addresses issues such as pay for our soldiers and the equipment they

need and benefits they deserve and they have earned, and all of the important issues that impact the protection of our country, and making sure we stand in faith with our men and women in uniform.

But I have to say that, unfortunately, this is part of a pattern of where we are right now in the Senate. It is very disappointing. I got elected in 2010. I know the Presiding Officer did as well. I came here because I saw that our country was in trouble. At the time I ran, we were $13 trillion in debt. Now we are $16 trillion in debt.

I have the privilege of serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee. It really is a privilege. I am the wife of an Iraq war veteran, very proud of our men and women in uniform. I take that responsibility very seriously. But here we stand, about to adjourn without taking up Defense authorization, so important to our men and women in uniform. Here we stand about to adjourn with our military facing what is called sequestration, which is an across-the-board cut which our own military leaders have said will hollow out our force, will undermine our military security for generations. These are the words of our own Secretary of Defense, will break faith with our men and women in uniform. If we do not take action before January 1, this happens to our military, on top of the fact that we have not taken up Defense authorization.

But not only that, it has been 3 years since the Senate has taken up a budget for our country, which is one of the reasons we find ourselves in the situation with the hatchet coming to our military in January.

On top of that, the majority leader has not brought forward one appropriations bill that would go with, if done in the right way, the appropriate budgeting and responsible budgeting process for this Nation. Let's identify some of the appropriations bills. None of them has come to the floor. But there are two important ones I can think of for our men and women in uniform, the Defense appropriations and also the appropriations for our veterans. Yet none of that has come to the floor, and here we are about to adjourn next week, not doing the people's business, the reason why people sent us here. If we cannot have a budget and we cannot take care of the foremost responsibilities of the American people, which is to keep them safe through preventing Draconian defense cuts that are going to undermine and break faith with our military, and, by the way also will cost us a million jobs coming in January, along with I did not even mention our tax rates are expiring, yet we are all leaving town, I think it is irresponsible.

I would call on the majority leader to bring up the Defense authorization bill now. Why can't we do a budget for this country? Without a budget, how are we ever going to address the fiscal issues that are burning and have led us to be $16 trillion in debt?

I stand here today to talk about why we should bring the Defense authorization to the floor. I certainly do not want to be part of a Senate that for the first time in 50 years has not passed that Defense authorization bill for our men and women in uniform.

Here is what is important as well. In the Senate Armed Services Committee we passed Defense authorization out of committee unanimously. At a time when I understand the American people are looking at us saying, there is too much partisanship, we see you fighting too much, this is a bill that passed with unanimous support from Republicans and Democrats from that committee. So in terms of a bill we can bring to the floor that is incredibly important to our country, incredibly important to our men and women in uniform, and a bipartisan bill, I cannot think of a better thing to do for our men and women in uniform, rather than continuing to have what we have seen from the majority leader, which is sort of political show votes rather than doing the real work the American people have sent us here to do.

Defense authorization should be on the top of our list, preventing our military from these receiving these devastating cuts that are going to diminish our national security at a very troubling time in the world, and also averting this fiscal crisis that is coming in January. I think we should stay to do that. I think the American people would expect nothing loss of us.

I thank the Presiding Officer. I know the Senator ran in 2010. I am sure you heard this when you ran for office. We need to do better by the American people. I know this. We owe it to our brave men and women in uniform to pass Defense authorization--bring it to the floor, debate it robustly, and then make sure it goes forward.

The House passed their Defense authorization on May 18. We should do our job here as well and take it up right away. I hope the majority leader will do that.

I yield the floor.