Floor Statements

Mr. President, the resolution I submit today with my colleague from Florida is straight forward. Credible and competitive parliamentary elections in Cambodia next month will be the measure or U.S. foreign assistance provided to the central government of that country in the future.

According to the United States Agency for International Development, from 1993 to 2011 the United States provided Cambodia with over $1.2 billion in economic and military assistance. The President's fiscal year 2014 budget request to Congress includes a total of $73.5 million in aid for Cambodia. America's investment in that Southeast Asian country has been anything but insignificant.

Unfortunately, we are not getting a return on this investment when it comes to the advancement of the rule of law, democracy, and human rights. A chorus of concern with the upcoming elections has been expressed by the United Nations, Cambodian civil society, and opposition political party leaders, including Sam Rainsy who is prohibited from participating in the polls by the actions of courts controlled by the ruling Cambodian People's Party, CPP. Given recent comments by CPP Prime Minister Hun Sen that he intends to remain in power until 2026, one wonders whether the CPP has already decided the outcome of the elections.

Less than credible and competitive polls subverts the will of the Cambodian people and perpetuates a level of corruption that ranks that country below Yemen in Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index, 2012. Equally troubling, Hun Sen's close ties with Beijing may further draw Cambodia into the People's Republic of China's sphere of influence--to the determinant of security and stability in the region.

I encourage the State Department to pay close attention to events in Cambodia and embrace the actions called for by this resolution should illegitimate elections be held next month. For many Asia-watchers, the response of the administration to these elections will help define the proposed United States pivot toward Asia.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join in recognizing LTC Peter Ford of South Carolina for his extraordinary service to the Nation while serving in the United States Army Reserves and National Guard for the past 32 years.

Lieutenant Colonel Ford started his military career in 1981 as an enlisted soldier--an infantryman--in the Virginia National Guard. After graduating from Gustavus Adolphus College, where he was the only ROTC cadet, Lieutenant Colonel Ford was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Army Ordinance Corps. After attending the Officer Basic Course, Lieutenant Colonel Ford, in his civilian capacity, was sworn in as a special agent with the State Department Diplomatic Security Service.

While serving as the Regional Security Officer, RSO, at the embassy in Switzerland, Lieutenant Colonel Ford was assigned as a military intelligence officer at the Military Intelligence Group at the 7th Army Reserve Command in Germany. In 1997, he mobilized to support the war in Bosnia. Following his return to the United States, he joined the Office, Chief of the Army Reserves, as a reserve congressional liaison officer and also served as a reservist with the 157th Individual Mobilization Augmentee Detachment.

In 2003, Lieutenant Colonel Ford was assigned as a congressional detailee to the Committee on Homeland Security and was named executive officer of the 157th. After serving as RSO in Armenia, he was detailed to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

In the fall of 2007, at the beginning of the surge during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Lieutenant Colonel Ford volunteered to serve as an Army reservist in Iraq. He was attached to the American Embassy in Baghdad and, as the director of the Office of Hostage Affairs, was responsible for U.S. kidnapping cases throughout the country. Following the completion of his military tour, Lieutenant Colonel Ford continued his service in Iraq. For an additional year, he worked as a DSS agent with the State Department in the same position.

Returning to the United States, Lieutenant Colonel Ford obtained a masters degree from the National Defense Intelligence College and joined Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Affairs as a drilling Reservist. He was subsequently assigned to the Diplomatic Security's Overseas Security Advisory Council, OSAC. In October 2011, Lieutenant Colonel Ford took command of the 157th Individual Mobilization Augmentee Detachment. During his military and civilian careers, Lieutenant Ford has worked in over 110 countries.

On behalf of a grateful nation, I join my colleagues today in saying thank you to LTC Peter Ford for his extraordinary dedication to duty and service to the country throughout his distinguished career in the United States Army.

Mr. President, that is my resolution with Senator Menendez. I do not mind yielding a couple of minutes to the Senator to make his points.

Mr. President, this is a debate where it does not matter who is speaking, Republican or Democrat, because we are speaking with one voice. That very seldom happens in American politics today, unfortunately. There will be 50 minutes divided, but really there is no division here.

S. Res. 65 has 91 cosponsors. That is very difficult to do. The Presiding Officer, Senator Coons, was an original cosponsor of the legislation.

What is S. Res. 65 all about? It is about the following: On March 4, 2012, President Obama stated:

Whenever an effort is made to delegitimize the State of

Israel, my administration has opposed them. So there should

not be a shred of doubt by now. When the chips are down, I

have Israel's back.

This resolution is in support of the President's statement. When I heard that statement, it was music to my ears, because the Iranian nuclear program, the efforts of the Iranians to develop a nuclear capability, marches on as I speak.

Today, May 22, there are two articles, one in the Associated Press, one in Reuters, talking about AIEA reports and diplomats saying that Iran is pressing forward with the construction of a research reactor that would add to their nuclear capability in terms of enriching uranium to make a bomb, and that they have increased the number of centrifuges dramatically since April.

We have been trying to sanction Iran--very successfully, I might add. Senator Menendez, my cosponsor here, the original cosponsor, will be here around 4. As to Bob Menendez, there is no stronger supporter of the U.S.-Israel relationship than Bob, who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

We have worked on a resolution. The guts of this resolution basically are as follows: It declares the United States has a vital national interest in and an unbreakable commitment to ensuring the existence, survival, and security of the state of Israel. It reaffirms the support of the United States for Israel's right to legitimate self-defense. In the last paragraph, it is not an authorization to use force, but it says the following: That if Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States will stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, economic support in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.

The whole resolution is about Israel having to defend herself against a nuclear-capable Iran. So when our President said in 2012 that ``we have Israel's back,'' that his administration has Israel's back, this is a chance for the Senate to say we also have Israel's back.

From my point of view, you cannot separate the threat the nuclear program in Iran creates from the United States and Israel. They are the same. The same threat Israel faces from a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclear-capable Iran, we face as a Nation. So people wonder, what will happen if that day ever comes? What would America do? Well, this is a statement by every Senator who votes yes--not an authorization to use force, but a statement--that if that day comes and Israel has to justifiably defend itself from a breakout by the Iranian regime to build a nuclear weapon, which could be the end of the Jewish state, we will have Israel's back economically, militarily, and diplomatically.

I cannot stress how important it is for that statement to be made by the Senate. Time is running out. Time is not on our side. As to the threat from Iran, since 1984 they have been characterized as the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world. As we have sanctioned them to stop their nuclear ambitions, the amount of enriched uranium has grown. As we talk, they enrich.

We are going to have several Senators come down to voice their support for this resolution.

With that, I would yield to Senater Hoeven for 2 minutes. The Senator has been an unwavering supporter of the United States-Israel relationship.

I thank the Senator from North Dakota.

Now I wish to recognize Senator Ayotte for 4 minutes. We have got a lot of speakers here to talk about S. Res. 65. She has been there at every step of the way.

Mr. President, at this time I wish to recognize a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, one of the strongest voices on national security in the body, a new member but someone who understands the world and is a tremendous supporter of the United States-Israel relationship, Senator Marco Rubio from Florida, for 4 minutes.

I thank the Senator for a terrific speech.

I would ask whether Senator Menendez minds if Senator McCain speaks.

We will do this by age. Senator McCain is recognized for 5 minutes. That is not quite a minute a decade, but that will get us going.

I wish to thank Senator McCain for his voice on this topic and any other topic that keeps America safe. I also thank Senator Menendez, without whom there would be no resolution. Senator Reid is not here, but I thank him for making the time available to have this vote.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Mississippi, Senator Wicker, who is a member of the Armed Services Committee.

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend from Texas, a strong supporter of the United States-Israel relationship, Senator Cornyn.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I thank Senator Cornyn and every person who spoke today and all the Senators who cosponsored this resolution. I thank Senator Reid for making the time available. Senator Menendez has been a terrific partner, the strongest voice one could hope for in having a partner on the Democratic side to stand at a time when it matters.

In conclusion, on March 4, 2012, the President, President Obama, said ``when the chips are down, I have Israel's back.''

Mr. President, you were right then. Today the Senate will speak with one voice echoing what you said.

There is a lot of wonderment about what is going to happen with the Iranian nuclear program. I hope and pray they stop their nuclear ambitions because they don't want a nuclear reactor, they want a nuclear weapon. If they ever get one we will never be safe, Israel will be under the gun for the rest of its existence, and they will share the technology with the terrorists. Every Sunni Arab state will want a nuclear weapon to counter the Shia Persians and all hell will break out beyond what it is today in the Mid-East.

How do we prevent that? Sanctions, diplomacy, but the one thing we cannot have in doubt is what we would do if Israel had to act in her self-defense to stop the nuclear ambitions of an Iranian regime that has promised to wipe the State of Israel off the map.

After today, in about 10 or 15 minutes, I believe every Member of the Senate will be telling the Iranians we are not going to allow them to get a nuclear weapon because if we do, they will throw the world in chaos. It will threaten our very existence, as well as the State of Israel, but most important we are going to tell everybody in the Mid- East, throughout the world, in Tehran, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv that if there is a conflict where Israel is justified in defending herself against a nuclear-capable Iran, we will be there for them. We will have their back. Where I come from, when we tell somebody, ``I have your back,'' that means if they get into a fight for their very life, they can count on us to be there.

In this case, Israel can count on the American people, the Senate, and our Commander in Chief to be there. If that day ever comes, and I pray it does not, but if that day ever comes where Israel has to take military action, to our friends in Israel: We will be there with you every step of the way, diplomatically, economically, and, yes, militarily.

To the Iranian people: We would love to have a better relationship with you. To the Iranian regime: You are one of the biggest evils on the planet. We will stand up to you. We will stand by our friends. And your desire to throw the world in chaos is never going to happen because we will be there when necessary to stop your ambitions.

To every colleague who has taken time out to sponsor this resolution, taken time out to speak on the floor: Thank you. There is not much we agree on 100 percent, but I think today will be a major milestone in our efforts to secure Israel and the United States. I think today we will have 100 percent support by the Senate and stand by our friends in Israel and stand up to the thugs in Iran.

I yield the floor.

I do not see any other speakers. I yield the remainder of the time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues from Georgia.

This is about Dr. Ernie Moniz's appointment to be Secretary of Energy. I put a hold on Dr. Moniz. It has nothing to do with him. He is a wonderful fellow. He is an MIT professor. He has been amply associated with the Department of Energy, including the MOX Program. All of us in Georgia and South Carolina look forward to working with him.

What we are upset about is the Obama administration's decision to temporarily stop construction on the MOX facility. It is about 60 percent complete.

What is MOX? It is a program to take 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium in excess of our defense needs and dispose of it by turning it into commercial-grade fuel. It is enough weapons-grade plutonium to make 17,000 warheads.

In 2000 there was an agreement between the United States and Russia: They would dispose of 34 metric tons and we would dispose of 34 metric tons. And we have been studying how to do that.

In 2010 the Federal Government--and the Obama administration--in the agreement with the Russians to move forward, said we would MOX the 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium. We were to turn it into mixed oxide fuel to be used in commercial reactors, which was a technology deployed in France, and that was the way forward.

To the administration's credit, we are finally moving forward. Senator Isakson, Senator Chambliss, and I went to the facility a couple of years ago and finally saw it moving forward. It is about 60 percent built. Now, in the budget proposal of the President, they stopped construction to study an alternative. There is no other alternative. If they try to turn it into vitrified glass material, that will take more money and more time than doing MOX, and it has not been proven to work the way it is set up today.

At the end of the day, the problems we should be focusing on are the cost overruns of the MOX Program. It is about $2 billion over cost. I would join with the administration to sit down with a contractor and try to recoup that $2 billion to find a way forward and make it affordable.

There are statutes in place that require a $100 million fine to be paid to the State of South Carolina if we don't meet our disposition goals. Last year we extended that statute by 2 years because we don't want the fine money, we want the MOX Program. It is good for the country, and it is good for the world.

Now that we have stopped the study, our fear is that we are stopping and studying an alternative that doesn't exist, and it cannot be cheaper than $2 billion. There is no other way to do it. We have been studying this for about 15 years, and we will be breaking the agreement with the Russians. Other than that, we don't have a problem with what they are doing.

What we want to do is sit down with the contractor and the administration and lower the costs of the program but keep it moving forward. This administration has talked consistently about reducing nuclear proliferation and making the world safer from the use of nuclear materials. This is a program that started in the Clinton administration--then Bush, and now Obama--that really would accomplish that.

Thirty-four metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium--enough to make 17,000 warheads--would be taken off the market forever. In this way, a sword becomes a plowshare by making commercial-grade fuel out of it. It is a good program, and we need to complete the program.

The reason we put a hold on the nominee for Secretary of Energy is to get everybody's attention. I have been talking with Dennis McDonough, and I have been talking with the administration. We hope we can resolve this, but we are here to speak for Georgia and South Carolina.

We have a deal with the Federal Government. We agreed to take this 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium years ago with the understanding that it would leave South Carolina and not affect the environment of South Carolina and Georgia in a permanent way.

We are very DOE-friendly in South Carolina and Georgia. The Savannah River site is right on the border. There are almost as many people from Georgia working at the site as there are from South Carolina. My colleagues from Georgia have been absolutely terrific.

At the end of the day we are going to be insistent that the Federal Government keep its commitment to the States of South Carolina and Georgia and to the Russians. We are going to make sure we dispose of this weapons-grade plutonium, and we are going to be more cost- conscious about it.

We are going to let Ernie Moniz become Secretary of Energy in 40 minutes. I will vote for him, but I will continue to slow down the process and make life incredibly miserable if we cannot find an accommodation that I think is fair. My State and the State of Georgia have been good partners with the Federal Government and the Department of Energy on energy issues.

Several years ago, when I first became a Senator--I think it was in 2002 or 2003--we agreed to leave some waste in the bottom of about 50 tanks that contained high-level waste material from the Cold War era from reactors at the Savannah River site used to make tritium to help fuel hydrogen bombs. By leaving a small amount in the bottom of the tank--the heel--and filling it with concrete, we were able to save $16 billion in cleanup costs. Instead of scrapping it all out and sending it to Yucca Mountain, which never came about, we were able to leave a small amount that would not hurt the environment of South Carolina and Georgia.

Now, in this budget they are reducing the tank closure by $106 million. We cannot do it that way. They cannot get us to help save money for the Federal Government and take on a reasonable risk--not much of a risk at all--and then short us. Whether it is a Republican or Democratic administration, people are going to stop dealing with the Federal Government when it comes to nuclear materials if this is the way we are going to do business.

The people in Georgia and South Carolina have been very accommodating. We appreciate the Savannah River site. It is a wonderful DOE facility. We are proud of it, and we are proud of the employees. But we are not going to be taken advantage of.

We are asking for the administration to sit down with us and others who care about this to find a way to lower the cost of the MOX construction but continue forward with the construction so we can get the MOX facility up and running. We need to honor our commitment to the Russians and get this weapons-grade plutonium off the market.

Count us in in terms of lowering costs; count us out when it comes to stopping the program in the middle and trying to find an alternative that doesn't exist.

As to the tanks, the Federal Government is going to honor its commitment to the people of South Carolina and Georgia to get these tanks closed up on time and on schedule. We have, again, saved $16 billion over the life of the close-up plan for the tanks just by being reasonable.

When it comes to MOX, there were three facilities planned to take the weapons-grade plutonium and turn it into a commercial-grade fuel. We were able to consolidate two of the facilities into one and save $2 billion. I am all for saving money, but I am also all for keeping one's word.

To our friends in the administration, we will work with you when we can, fight you when we must, but when it comes to this, I hope there will be a lot of bipartisanship for the delegations of South Carolina and Georgia to make sure we honor the commitment entered into between the Federal Government and the State of South Carolina that will affect our friends in Georgia and keep this program moving. We are not asking for too much. As a matter of fact, we are insisting on the Federal Government holding up its end of the bargain because we have held up our end of the bargain.

To our friends in the administration, let's see if we can solve this problem.

To my colleagues in this body, I hope I would have the good judgment and common sense to support the Members if anyone found themselves in this position of trying to do something good for the Nation and have it get off the rail. I hope I would be willing to help the other side when it comes to something such as this.

It is very difficult to deal with these high-level waste issues, particularly weapons-grade plutonium. When we find somebody who is willing to be reasonable and helpful, the last thing that should be done is to change the rules in the middle of the game.

With that, I will yield to Senator Isakson to just quickly ask him, from his point of view, does he see this as a fundamental breach of the agreement we have had for years, and what effect does he think it will have on our nonproliferation agenda and how does it affect South Carolina and Georgia?

I can't thank Senator Isakson enough. Senator Scott has been with us at every step. But I want to let everybody in Georgia know that when it comes to the Savannah River site, we have worked as a team for years, and I just can't thank the Senator enough.

Senator Chambliss is one of the leading national security experts in the Senate, and he has been intimately involved in the MOX program. My question for Senator Chambliss is, we have an agreement with the Russians; they will dispose of their 34 metric tons of excess plutonium--enough to create 17,000 warheads in Russia--and we have agreed to do the same. If we are seen to stop and not honor our commitment, what reaction does the Senator from Georgia think the Russians would have, and is it smart to delay this program in the times in which we live?

I worry about the materials being compromised not so much in South Carolina and Georgia but very much in Russia. Could the Senator express his thoughts about that?

I thank Senator Chambliss.

I believe Senator Reed wishes to be recognized for a request.

Just to conclude, I wish to thank both of my colleagues. They have been great partners on this issue and many others. We have tried to be good partners with the Federal Government. We are proud of the Savannah River site and all that has been accomplished over the last 50 years. Now we are moving into a new phase of trying to get rid of Cold War materials--34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium here, and in Russia, 60 percent completion of the MOX program.

As to the $2 billion overrun, that is not lost upon me as being a lot of money. That is a lot of money. But what I am telling my fellow Members of the body, and the country as a whole, there is no way we can find an alternative to MOX cheaper than that $2 billion. It is just not possible. We have been studying this forever, and in the agreement itself with the Russians, it specifically says MOX, and it prohibits us as a nation from burying the plutonium.

So this is the way forward. I promise the Members of the body and the administration we will lower the cost overruns, I promise. This is a complicated scientific endeavor, but we will lower the cost overruns.

What we will not do is stop the program when it is 60 percent complete and study an alternative that has no possibility of coming about scientifically and could never lower costs and interrupt the disposition of this weapons-grade plutonium and breach the agreement with the Russians. We will not be a party to that. We will keep talking.

As to Mr. Moniz, he will be an outstanding Secretary of Energy. We look forward to working with him.

I appreciate my colleagues coming down and joining me in this colloquy and putting everything on the record about the Savannah River site and MOX.

With that, I yield the floor to Senator Reed.

That would be a big contradiction.

I will just yield to Senator Levin to answer the question and make his opening statement.

Mr. President, I would just like to echo what Senator McCain said about Senator Menendez. I would like to, for the record, note that the tide of war in Syria changed today because of what is happening on the floor of the Senate. That may be hard for people to understand, but I really do not think so.

How do you change the tide of battle? You make it certain to the world that Asad will go, and you provide hope to those who are fighting him that they will prevail. I would suggest that a bipartisan consensus is forming in the Senate that now is the time to do more, not less, when it comes to Syria, including arming the rebels--the right rebels, the right opposition, with the right weapons, which will eventually change the tide of battle.

So to those who have been following this debate about Syria, to those who have been in the fight trying to topple this regime, I cannot stress to you how important today is in your cause. When you get Senator Levin and Senator Menendez, two institutional, important figures because of their chairmanships, but beyond that, important because of who they are and what they bring to every debate around national security, combined with Senator McCain and others, you have turned the tide in Washington.

As to Senator McCain, he has been talking in the most eloquent terms for at least a couple of years about stopping this war in Syria, ending the Asad regime and replacing it with something better. He has been right, as he usually is. But now is not the time to look backward, it is to look forward.

I think an effort by the Senate and the House to acknowledge that the tide of war needs to change and we should be bolder in our support for the opposition is going to increase the likelihood of a peaceful solution through diplomacy.

The Russians have to know, after today, if they know anything about American politics, the game has changed when it comes to Asad, and this is a monumental sea change in terms of the war in Syria by having four Senators who care about such matters of foreign policy to speak out and say we will support arming the rebels and being more involved militarily.

To the opposition, this is a great day for you. To Asad, this seals your fate.

Now, what do we do and how do we do it? It will not all end tomorrow because of this colloquy today, but we are well on the way to ending this war. Here is the choice: The current regime, which is evil to the core, and the imperfect opposition, which has been infected by radical Islam--you can fix the second one; you cannot fix the first. It is that simple to me.

The sooner the war ends the better, not only for saving people in Syria from further slaughter, but preventing what I think would be an erosion of our national security interests in four areas. If this war goes 6 more months, a failed state will emerge in Syria. It will be so fractured you cannot put it back together.

The 6,000 al-Qaida associated fighters will grow in number, and there will be a safe haven in Syria like there was in Afghanistan. That is not good for us. Unlike Afghanistan, there is enough chemical weapons in Syria to kill thousands if not millions of Americans and people who are our allies. I worry greatly not only that chemical weapons have been used in Syria on the opposition by the regime, but those same chemical weapons will be used in the future by radical Islamists against us.

The next bomb that goes off in America may have more than nails and glass in it. The only reason millions of Americans or thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands have not been killed by radical Islamists is they cannot get the weapons to kill that many of us. They would if they could.

I have never seen a better opportunity for radical Islamists to get ahold of weapons of mass destruction than I see in Syria today. Every day that goes by their opportunity to acquire some of these weapons grows dramatically. If you ask me what I worry the most about with Syria and why we should get involved, it is for that very reason. If these weapons get compromised, they are going to fall into the hands of the people who will use them against us, and to believe otherwise would be incredibly naive.

Jordan. Probably the most stabilizing figure in the Mideast in these dangerous times is the King of Jordan. His country is being overrun by refugees. If this war goes on 6 more months, that is probably the end of his kingdom because it will create economic chaos and political instability. He will be a victim of the civil war in Syria, and it will have monumental consequences for our national security.

As we talk about Syria and chemical weapons falling into radical Islamists' hands, we are dealing with a radical regime in Iran that is marching toward building a nuclear weapon. If you think the ayatollahs in Iran are trying to build a nuclear powerplant at the bottom of a mountain, you are wrong. They are trying to build a nuclear weapon to ensure their survivability. God only knows what they would do with nuclear technology. But if you believe what they say, they would wipe Israel off the map, and we would be next. I tend to believe what they say.

If you allow Syria to continue to deteriorate and have a hands-off policy

toward Asad, then I think you are sending the worst possible signal to Iran. As Senator Levin said, really the only ally Iran has today is Asad in Syria. How can we convince the Iranians we are serious about their nuclear problem when we do not seem to be very serious about Asad using chemical weapons against his own people? What a terrible signal to send at one of the most important times.

I would end with this thought: This bipartisan consensus that is emerging today is going to pay great dividends. It is going to be helpful to the President. We can end this war sooner rather than later. But no matter what happens, there is going to be a second war in Syria, unfortunately.

That second war is going to be between radical Islamists who want to turn Syria into some kind of al-Qaida-inspired state, and the overwhelming majority of Syrians who want to live a better life and be our friends, not our enemies.

This war will occur after the fall of Asad. But it will end the right way. The sooner we get the first war over, the shorter the second war will be. I think we can bring this war to a close without boots on the ground. The sooner we act the better.

One last thought. To the opposition, you would be helping your cause if you would let the world know that you do not want Asad's chemical weapons; that the new Syria will not be a state that wants weapons of mass destruction; that you would agree these weapons should be controlled by the international community and destroyed; that you would agree to an international force coming on the ground with your blessing the day after Asad falls to secure these weapons and destroy them for all time. I think you would be helping your cause.

So I say to Senator McCain, I really appreciate his leadership for a couple of years. But persistence does matter in politics and all things that are important. I think the Senator's persistence is paying off.

I say to Senator Menendez and Senator Levin, what they have done today joining up in a bipartisan fashion is going to pay great dividends for our own national security interests. The way forward is pretty clear.

I say to President Obama, we want to be your ally. We want to be your supporter. We want you to get more involved, not less. We realize it is hard. We realize there are risks no matter what we do. But as Senator McCain said before, the risk of doing nothing by continuing on the current track is far greater than getting involved in ending the war sooner.

I thank the Senator for his question. It was one of the most compelling trips I have ever made to the Middle East. We went to Turkey, Jordan, and we went to a refugee camp in Jordan. Some 40,000 Syrian children are now in Jordanian schools. The burden on Jordan is immense, but when you talk to the people in the camps, what they have gone through and what their loved ones have gone through is heartbreaking.

From a national point of view, once you visit the camps, you understand what is at stake. They tell you about radical Islamists moving in. They want no part of them but at the end of the day they are having more influence because we are not in the fight. You can do this without boots on the ground.

The most chilling thing they tell us, which Senator McCain, has been echoing for a long time, is their children are watching the United States. Like it or not, we have the reputation in the world that we can do almost anything.

Well, we can't do almost anything, but we are seen as a force for good. The people in Syria are beside themselves wondering where is America. America, to them, is an idea. They want to be like us because it means freedom, and it means economic opportunity. It means having a say about your children's future. They are dumbfounded that we are not more involved, given the stakes that exist in Syria. They tell us without any hesitation that the young people of Syria will remember this moment. They will hold this against us. I think I know what the Senator is telling us.

Here is the good news: There is still time to act. It doesn't have to end that way. The conditions in Syria are horrible. The refugee camps were beyond imagination. The U.N. is doing a great job, but they are running out of money. Jordan is about to fall if we don't stop this war.

From a human point of view, we have got to get this war over and America needs to be seen as part of the solution, not part of the problem. From a national security point of view, Syria is going to become a nightmare for the whole world, including the United States.

Very simply put, I have two goals. I think Americans

want two things to happen in this case. They want the surviving suspect to be brought to justice. I am glad he survived, as hopefully we may learn some information from him that will make us all safer in the future. I am pleased he survived so we may try him in a court of law, before a Federal court in Massachusetts, to hold him accountable for his crimes. In the trial, he will be given a lawyer. He has the right to remain silent. He will be tried by a jury. He will be given all the rights associated with a Federal court trial. He is an American citizen, and we have never suggested otherwise.

As one of the primary authors of the 2009 Military Commissions Act, I expressly exempted American citizens from military commission trials. Why? I wanted to reserve that system for foreign terrorists. It doesn't mean I don't believe there will be domestic terrorism. It doesn't mean I don't envision an American citizen helping the foreign enemy. I do. Every war, unfortunately, we have been in during the history of our country, American citizens have joined forces and sided with the enemy. This is not an unusual event. What would be unusual is to say one could do so and not be treated under the law of war. We would be making history if we adopted that view.

Let me begin with a case in World War II. German saboteurs landed in Long Island. They had been planning for years an effort to come to our country. These were Germans who had lived in our country and went back to Germany and became Nazis. Because they spoke good English, they were recruited by the German intelligence service to come back and plan massive attacks on our homeland.

They had a cell here in America, some of whom were American citizens who joined the plot. Thanks to the great FBI work of this time and day, as soon as they landed the plot was foiled and the American citizens were captured. In 1944, 1945, and possibly as late as 1946, the American citizens who aided the German saboteurs were held as enemy combatants and tried in a military court. Three of them were hanged.

The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said: When you join the forces of our enemy, you are committing an act of war, not a common crime.

Tokyo Rose sided with the Japanese. She was tried and given a life sentence. Since 9/11, there have been three American citizens who have been involved with al-Qaida or the Taliban or affiliated groups. They have been held as enemy combatants. They have gone to trial in civilian court and the courts have blessed the holding of American citizens as enemy combatants.

Rumsfeld v. Hamdi was an American citizen captured in Afghanistan held under the law of war as an enemy combatant. He was eventually tried and the Court said, as in World War II, we can hold one of our own as an enemy combatant, recognizing the difference between a common crime and the law of war.

Mr. Padilla was held 4 years by the Bush administration. His case went up to the Fourth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit said: Yes, you can hold enemy combatants off the battlefield. That is the power the United States possesses at a time of war.

When you are fighting a war, the goal is to win the war and to find out about what the enemy is up to. When you are fighting a crime, the goal is to convict someone or have them found innocent. They are two different systems.

This young man will be going to Federal Court and a jury will decide if he is guilty of his crimes. What we are asking of the administration is: How do you gather intelligence in that system? It is not meant to gather intelligence. We don't want to limit ourselves as a Nation to asking questions about future attacks in the criminal justice system because here is the way that works. If I am his lawyer, I am not going to let you ask him any question about anything until I get a benefit for my client. So intelligence gathering now is controlled by the terror suspect and his lawyer. Is that smart? Now you are having to plea bargain to get intelligence.

What we are saying is, conduct the trial in civilian court--the only form available--but because there are international terrorist connections here--clearly they killed people in Boston not because they wanted their property or they were mad with the Boston city government, they killed--they slaughtered a young boy and his family and others because they have adopted a radical jihadist view of us as a Nation. The older brother was quoted as saying we are infidels, we are a colonial Christian power, we have corrupted Islam. They are trying to kill us and destroy our way of life because of what we believe.

The sooner we understand that, the better off we will be.

Here is my view about defending ourselves as a Nation. A criminal court is about due process and giving the accused a fair trial. Military intelligence gathering is about defending the Nation at war. The question we all have to answer for ourselves is: Is America at war? The answer, to me, is yes. We are at war with a radical ideology that hates everything we stand for.

Bin Laden is dead. We celebrate that. But al-Qaida is very much on the march. As a matter of fact, radical Islam is regenerating, and the way they are coming after us is to find people in our own backyard and turn them against us.

How could we have missed this? How could the intelligence services in Russia tell the FBI: You need to watch this guy; we believe he is a radical Islamist coming to your country to hurt you? How could we miss him going to Russia and coming back? How could we miss his YouTube videos where he is ranting and raving against us and threatening to take us down as a Nation?

These are questions to be asked and answered. And here is what we are suggesting: The surviving suspect, due to the ties these two have to radical Islamic thought, and the ties to Chechnya, one of the most radical regions in the world, the President should declare preliminarily that the evidence suggests this man should be treated as an enemy combatant. We could hold him for a period of time, question him without a lawyer, and none of the evidence could be used against him in the criminal proceeding. That is the best way to gather intelligence. The best way to gather intelligence is to have a rapport with him, take down the stories he is telling us and deconstruct them; spend time with him outside the criminal justice system.

We have gathered so much good intelligence from enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay. You won't send him to Guantanamo Bay, but during the last decade we have exploited intelligence from enemy combatants-- people who have joined the other side--and it has helped us figure out how to defend ourselves and find bin Laden.

All we are saying is when it comes to defending against future attacks, we want to talk to him without a lawyer. That is all we are saying. We want to talk to him without a lawyer so we can find out what he may know about what we face in the future, and when it comes to prosecuting him, we won't use anything we found against him. A first- year law student could convict him, but, my God, look what we are losing as a Nation by using this model. Instead of taking time out to interrogate him without the presence of counsel to learn about what did happen, we are now stuck in a criminal justice system where we can't ask him one question his lawyer won't allow.

I am not blaming the lawyer. My goodness, if I were his defense lawyer, no one would ask him one thing without my permission, and they would have to give a lot to get an answer to anything. All I am suggesting is we are at war, these two people fit the profile of folks who are trying to kill us, they are tied to overseas organizations potentially, so why in the world can't our country have some time with this person in the national security legal system to find out about what he knows and how they planned this attack, to make the rest of us safer.

I believe in due process. And he, in that system, can go to a judge and say, I am not an enemy combatant, and the government would have to prove he is. So he has due process there. But here is what I believe deeply, and then I will turn it over to Senator Ayotte of New Hampshire. I believe the closer one gets to our homeland, the more rights we have as a people to defend ourselves. I don't want a police state. I don't want to live in a country where

we can't express who we are and what we believe in and to argue and have a different view of religion. But, by God, given the times in which we live, I don't want to become deaf and blind to the threats that are real in our own backyard. I want a system that can find out about guys like this before they kill us.

Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, if we don't gather good intelligence and we don't hit them before they hit us, there is more to come.

Not only do I agree, who picked the battlefield? I didn't pick America to be the battlefield. I don't want to be at war with anybody. They chose the battlefield.

Where do you think they want to hit us most, I ask Senator McCain? If you could get the top leadership and give them one shot at America anywhere, where would they take that shot? Would they hit us in France? They would hit us here. Why? Because they want to destroy our way of life. They are trying to come here to kill us. All I am suggesting is we should be able to defend ourselves. And the closer they get to us, the more rights to defend ourselves we should have.

Let me say I asked the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps: Is the authorization to use military force against al-Qaida, the Taliban, or affiliated groups limited to outside the United States? They said: No, there is no geographic limitation. So if somebody hijacked a plane tomorrow trying to fly it into the Capitol, our military could shoot it down. We are not going to restrict ourselves to the battlefield being everywhere else but in our own backyard.

Yes, if I may, hats off to the Boston, MA, police officers, to the Presiding Officer's town. Our heart breaks for the victims. Bostonians made us proud. They show us how to stay brave. The FBI and everybody did a great job, but how we missed this I still want to know.

The Senator from New Hampshire was the former attorney general of New Hampshire. She knows the difference between fighting a war and fighting a crime.

I have been a military lawyer, I have been a civilian lawyer, and I am all very much for the idea of due process being given to everyone charged with a crime, including this man. He deserves to be presumed innocent, to have a lawyer, and a jury to find him guilty or innocent. He deserves all that because it makes us better and safer. But what we should not give up as a Nation is the ability to find out about future attacks in a logical way. We are at war, and in the law of armed conflict, national security applies here, in my view, because of the type of incident involved and the threats we face.

I wish to hear from Senator Ayotte, who has become one of the most knowledgeable people on the topic. She has tried people in New Hampshire--death penalty cases--and if she doesn't mind, perhaps she can share with us her view of where the battlefield is, what kind of laws to apply to a situation such as this.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.

I thank the Chair.

I would ask the Senator from New Hampshire, how do we get the death penalty when the only way we can get information out of the suspect is to go through his lawyer? If we can't have this national security interrogation, where there is no lawyer, to get information to protect against a future attack that can't be used in a trial, don't you think the lawyer is going to say: I am not going to have my client talk to you unless you promise not to seek the death penalty?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to talk about the pending amendments for about 8 minutes.

Mr. President, this debate we are having about gun control legislation and how to solve a difficult problem is a good debate. Quite frankly, I never understood why we would not want to have this debate. This is an issue where most Americans very much would like to see something of substance accomplished. But the goal is to do something of substance that will address the underlying problem, not just pass legislation, quite frankly, in a more feel-good category.

Senators Manchin and Toomey are very sincere. I know they are trying to fix a problem that is seen by a lot of people to be a problem, and I understand where they are coming from. But I want to take my time to talk about two things.

The President has given a lot of speeches about this issue, very emotional in nature--that State of the Union Speech--and he has literally traveled all over the country to sort of gin up support for three things: a universal background check, the banning of assault weapons, assault rifles, and limiting magazine sizes. At the end of the day, the Senate will take up these measures individually and somewhat collectively, and here is what I think will happen.

I think when it comes to the magazine size limitation, that is not going to pass the Senate simply because there are thousands, if not millions, of magazines beyond 10 rounds out in the current marketplace. From a criminal point of view, this legislation wouldn't affect them one bit. They will get a magazine of whatever size they would like. It would affect law-abiding citizens and put them in a bad spot.

The best way to interrupt a shooter in a Newtown situation is not to limit the magazine size but to have a security officer in the school who can confront the shooter before they get to the kids. Don't kid yourself that having to reload is going to be the answer to interrupting a crazy person bent on destroying the lives of innocent people. In a school environment, in my view, the best way is to confront that shooter with a trained law enforcement officer. The Grassley-Cruz-Graham amendment has money put back into the system-- money President Obama cut out of school safety, some $300 million, at a time when that was very unwise. So we would restore that money.

Two months ago, maybe a little longer, there was a young woman at home in the Atlanta suburbs with her twin daughters--I believe they were twin daughters--and there was a home invasion by someone who had just been released from jail. She took her children up on the second floor and hid in the closet. She got on the cell phone and called her husband asking what to do. She grabbed a .38 revolver. The guy broke into the closet, she fired six times, emptying the gun and hitting him five to six times. He was still able to get up and drive away.

Approximately one-third of the assaults in this country are committed by more than one person. In the hands of that mother, six shots were not enough. It wouldn't bother me one bit if she had 30 rounds. In the hands of a mentally unstable person or convicted felon, one bullet is too many. That is why I oppose the magazine size limit. It does not address the problem.

Now, as to the AR-15, there are 4 million of these rifles available. It is one of the most popular selling sportsman's rifles in the country. I have been in the military for almost 30 years. It is similar to the M16, but it is a semiautomatic, not a fully automatic rifle. The reason I own one is because I like to shoot. I am not going to bother anybody. I am not going to do anything wrong with the gun. I passed the background check to get the rifle.

Why an AR-15? Vice President Biden, who is a good friend, has suggested a double-barrel shotgun is the best way to defend a home in case you find a lawless environment. We have had hurricanes, earthquakes, or other natural disasters where law enforcement is not available to families because the system is broken. They can't call, they can't travel, there has been a catastrophic event, such as Sandy, Hugo or Katrina. These things happen in the real world where law and order breaks down.

The Vice President was talking to a young man who was worried about this, and he said: You don't need an AR-15, you need a double-barrel shotgun. That is the best way to defend your home.

To be honest with you, I disagree. If there is a roving gang in the community, and there are three homes, one without a gun, one with a double-barrel shotgun, and one with an AR-15, they are going to pick the AR-15 last. Now, you may not agree with me, but I think that makes sense as a self-defense weapon. So that is why the assault ban is not going to pass.

Less than 2 or 3 percent of all murders in this country are committed with a rifle of any kind. Most murders committed in this country, violent acts, with a gun, are committed with handguns.

At the end of the day, the magazine limitation is not going to pass because it doesn't address the problem. In the hands of a mother, six rounds is not enough; in the hands of a criminal, one is too many. The AR-15, 4 million guns available; the assault weapon is a very popular selling gun, and I think under Heller that type of weapon would be protected. It is not the gun you own, it is who owns it.

At the end of the day, the universal background check is not going to make it. Senators Manchin and Toomey are trying to find a solution in a smaller way. I appreciate that. But here is my concern about background checks.

Last year, 80,000 people failed a background check, and 9,000 of the people who failed the background check were convicted felons on the run from the law. Yet only 44 people were prosecuted out of 80,000. Of those 9,000, I can't find one case where the law enforcement community found out a criminal on the run from the law tried to buy a gun and they went and picked him up. We at least ought to be catching dumb criminals. If they are dumb enough to fill out a background check while they are on the run, the system ought to catch them.

Let me tell you of another problem we found. In 2005, there was a young lady named Alice Boland, who is a paranoid schizophrenic, a very troubled young lady with a history of mental illness, who pled not guilty by reason of insanity for trying to kill the President of the United States and a Secret Service agent. The threats were made at the Canadian border, and she eventually came to South Carolina with her family.

She was adjudicated by a Federal court, pled not guilt by reason of insanity, and the plea was accepted. She was confined to a mental health institution by the court. When she got out, she went home, and in February of this year she went to Walterboro, a small community near Charleston, and bought a .22 semiautomatic pistol. She filled out the background check, and her plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was not entered into the background check system. The fact she was confined to a mental health institution by a Federal court didn't make it into the background check system.

She bought the gun, went to a private school--Ashley Hall in Charleston--went to the office area where the staff was located, pulled out the gun, and the gun didn't fire. Thank God it didn't. But our background system doesn't catch people like her.

There are 14,000 people in South Carolina who have been adjudicated a danger to themselves and others by a competent court under due process who are not in the Federal background system. There may be up to 1 million people.

The Grassley-Cruz-Graham bill will fix that problem. It would make sure before you get a law enforcement grant from the Federal Government, the State that requests the grant has to enter into the Federal database people who have been held mentally a danger to themselves or others by a competent court. It looks like we could at least do that to get thousands, if not up to 1 million people, who have been deemed to be a danger to themselves or others

into the background check system before we expand it.

So I support Grassley-Cruz-Graham. I think it has a comprehensive approach. It has an antitrafficking component to it. It has a task force that will have $50 million available to the Federal law enforcement community to go after people who fail a background check or who are felons. I think it is a much better approach than the other legislation on the floor.

So I will be opposing Manchin-Toomey. I appreciate the spirit in which it has been offered, but I think defending the background check system is not the problem. Making the background check system capture mental health adjudications and doing something about a felon who fails a background check is a wiser approach rather than expanding a broken system.

When we only have 44 people out of 80,000 prosecuted, something is wrong. Why create more paperwork where nobody is going to do anything about it. Let's focus on the problem.

So I think this has been a good debate for the Senate. When it is all said and done, after a reasoned debate, the President's proposal--more emotional than practical--of a universal background check, which would have included a private sale, no matter what he said, is not going to carry the day in the Senate.

We should be going after the criminal, not the law-abiding citizen, and all of us should want to make sure that those who are a danger to themselves and others do not have access to a weapon. That is a commonsense approach to a hard problem.

I look forward to the votes today and the votes to come because this is an issue which should be debated. I am not afraid to voice the courage of my convictions. Everyone in this body is sincere about their approach to the problem, but I think at the end of the day what is going to prevail is common sense.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Absolutely.

Absolutely. It is taking a more limited approach. I totally understand it.

Yes. We need to vote on this.

This amendment will get your attention.

About 500,000 or 600,000 Federal employees will be furloughed because of sequestration. They are going to miss 1 day a week of pay. We can't dock our own pay constitutionally, but I am asking through this amendment that all of us, beginning in April, take 20 percent of our salary and give it to the charity of our choice or anybody we would like so that we would feel what other people are feeling because of sequestration.

Thank you. Have a good night.

What is the question?

I will take a voice vote, absolutely.

Wait a minute. I ask for a rollcall vote.

I have no objection but----

No objection, I just need about 7 or 8 minutes.

Madam President, I wish to bring the body's attention to a recent decision by the Obama administration to place the son-in-law of Osama bin Laden, Mr. Abu Ghaith--I think I am pronouncing the name correctly--into Federal district court in New York charged with conspiracy to kill American citizens. He has been presented to our criminal justice system. He is, in my view, the classic example of an enemy combatant.

I will be, along with Senator Ayotte, writing the Attorney General asking for a rundown of how long he was interrogated before he was read his Miranda rights. I believe this is a classic example of a person of great intelligence value who should have been held as an enemy combatant at Guantanamo Bay for intelligence-gathering purposes as long as it took to get good intelligence. He, in my view, is a treasure trove of information about not only al-Qaida but maybe things going on in Iran. There is an allegation of his being held in Iran for a very long time as their houseguest, for lack of a better word.

I fear greatly we are beginning to go back to the criminal justice model that

preceded 9/11. The first time the World Trade Center was attacked, we had the Blind Sheik case and the prosecutors did a wonderful job of prosecuting the Blind Sheik and his conspirators in Federal court. But everybody at that time treated al-Qaida and terrorism as a criminal threat.

After 9/11, we changed our model. The attacks of 9/11 were viewed as an act of war and we authorized military force to go after al-Qaida and affiliates by allowing us to use the law of war model regarding al- Qaida operatives. From 9/11 forward, we can now hold them as enemy combatants.

Under the law of war--I have been a military lawyer for 30 years-- there is no Miranda right component. If a person is captured as an enemy prisoner, he or she is not read their rights or provided a lawyer. When a commander hears we have a highly valued member of the enemy in our custody, the first thing the commander wants to know is what intelligence have we gathered. The last thing on the commander's mind is where we are going to prosecute them.

So when we are fighting a war, the purpose of interrogating an enemy prisoner is to find out information about enemy activity so we can win the war and protect our troops. In criminal law, the purpose is to convict somebody for a crime. Under criminal law--domestic criminal law--we cannot hold someone for interrogation purposes. We can't ask them about what they have been up to, what they know, and I don't suggest we should. They are entitled to a lawyer and Miranda rights and that is the way it should be.

But we are fighting a war, at least in my view we are fighting a war. I wish to remind the Nation--I doubt if we need a whole lot of reminding but every now and then apparently we do--this is the Twin Towers on fire, beginning to crumble from an attack on 9/11. This is the Pentagon, the damage done to the Pentagon, and 300 people lost their lives there, and this is the Shanksville, PA, site of Flight 93.

To those who suggest we are not in a war, I could not disagree more. I would say the single biggest loss of life in the war on terror was the first day; the very first day the war began, September 11, 2001. Do my colleagues remember where they were? Do they remember their reaction? The first three battles in this war cost us the most lives of any day in the war. We have lost a lot of soldiers, and our hearts go out to them, but there has never been a day when Americans bled more than 9/11 itself.

There are three battlefields in this war: New York, over 2,000 people killed; the Pentagon, around 300 killed; Shanksville, PA, the entire membership of that airplane was killed. To the people of flight 93: You fought back. You weren't fighting against a bunch of criminals. You fought back against a bunch of terrorists who were trying to take the last airplane and crash it into this building or some other building in Washington. To those who died on that flight, you are the first line of defense. You, above all others, were the first ones to fight back. I will not let your fight go unnoticed. You were not fighting a bunch of criminals. You were fighting people who are at war with us.

I wish we had understood in 1998 we were at war and not used a criminal model. If we had kept the Blind Sheik in military custody, interrogated him for a very long time, lawfully and humanely--because I believe that as a military lawyer--maybe we could have gotten information that would have prevented 9/11.

Here is why I am so upset. The person in custody in New York is the son-in-law of Osama bin Laden. Again, I remind my colleagues, this is the bloodiest day in the war on terror. These are three battlefields that cost us 2,900 lives. Over 2,900 American citizens died on the first day of the war.

Now, years later, we are still capturing people. The person we captured--and I congratulate all those who were involved in bringing this man into our custody. This person over here to the left sitting by Osama bin Laden is his son-in-law. He left Kuwait in 2000 and went to Afghanistan. He pledged allegiance to bin Laden. He was the spokesperson for al-Qaida. He was one of the key guys trying to get other people to pledge allegiance to al-Qaida and bin Laden.

So in 2000 he went to Afghanistan and he joined with bin Laden and became his son-in-law. He founded a charity that was used to support terrorist organizations.

On 9/11, after the attacks, he was one of the first people to speak and to glorify the attacks about how they attacked our homeland. I will get that quote later; I don't have it with me. He said: My brothers, we finally hit the homeland. We finally hit them in the heart of where they live.

On October 10 in a video he said: Americans should know the storm of planes will not stop. There are thousands of the Islamic nation's youth who are eager to die, just as the Americans are eager to live.

All I can say is if this man was interrogated by our intelligence officials and the FBI for hours, not days, before he was read his Miranda rights--under the law of war, we have the opportunity available to us to hold them indefinitely as a prisoner, an enemy combatant, a member of the enemy force, and to lawfully interrogate him without a lawyer, without reading him his Miranda rights because we are trying to gather intelligence and make sure we can prevent future attacks and to find out what this vicious enemy is up to. We did not take that opportunity.

This administration is refusing to use Guantanamo Bay, one of the best military jails in the history of the world--very transparent, well run, and it is the place he should be today, not in New York City awaiting trial in Federal court.

It is not about Federal court not being available in the war on terror. Article III courts have done a good job in many cases of prosecuting terrorists but so have military commission tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, where KSM, the architect of 9/11, is being prosecuted under the Military Commissions Act.

My complaint is that this man was, within hours, read his Miranda rights and given a lawyer and cut off the ability of our government to find out what he knew about the war on terror, current operations, and future operations. He should have been at Guantanamo Bay, interrogated by our military for as long as it took to find out what he knew. If the administration is telling me we got all we needed from this man in 1 day, they are offending my intelligence. I have been a military lawyer for 30 years. I understand what is going on at Guantanamo Bay, the information we have received over years. In some cases, it took months, if not years, to get the total picture of what a detainee knew. So if the administration is telling me and the American public the time they had with this man before they read him his Miranda rights was enough, then they are offending my intelligence.

They are making a huge mistake. The decision not to treat him as an enemy combatant and putting him at Guantanamo Bay for interrogation purposes under the law of the war is one of the most serious mistakes we have made since 9/11. We are beginning to criminalize the war.

This was not an intelligence decision or a military decision; it was a political decision, because they will never convince me or almost anybody else in America that interrogating him for hours was enough. The reason he was interrogated for hours and not days is that they did not want to take him to Guantanamo Bay. The reason he was read his Miranda rights is they are pushing everybody back into the criminal justice system.

All I can say is that Guantanamo Bay has been reformed. It should be the place we take people such as he, as an enemy combatant, to be interrogated under the law of war, and we are using the criminal justice model in a way that will come back to haunt our Nation. We are beginning to criminalize the war. I want my colleagues to know we are going down a very dangerous path, and I will do everything in my power to get this administration and future administrations back in the game when it comes to fighting a war because I believe very much, I say to my colleagues, that we are in a state of war with an enemy who does not wear a uniform, who has no capital to conquer, no Air Force to shoot down, and no Navy to sink. The only thing between them and us is our brave men and women in the military and good information. This man was interrogated for hours when he should have been interrogated for months.

We are beginning to do what got us into this mess to begin with, looking at al-Qaida as a group of common criminal thugs rather than the warriors they are. These people right here mean to kill us all. They are at war with us. I intend to be at war with them.

I yield the floor.

I thank my colleague. That is a very good question.

This has been a very lively debate. Senator Paul has a lot of passion, and that is a great thing. This is an important issue. We should be talking about it, and I welcome a reasoned discussion. But to my Republican colleagues, I don't remember any of you coming down here suggesting that President Bush was going to kill anybody with a drone-- I don't even remember the harshest critics of President Bush from the Democratic side. They had a drone program back then, so what is it all of a sudden about this drone program that has gotten every Republican so spun up? What are we up to here?

I think President Obama has, in many ways, been a very failed President. I think his executive orders overstep, I think he has intruded into the congressional arena by Executive order, I think ObamaCare is a nightmare, and there are 1,000 examples of a failed Presidency, but there is also some agreement. People are astonished, I say to the Senator, that President Obama is doing many of the things President Bush did. I am not astonished. I congratulate him for having the good judgment to understand we are at war.

To my party, I am a bit disappointed that you no longer apparently think we are at war. Senator Paul, he is a man unto himself. He has a view I don't think is a Republican view. I think it is a legitimately held libertarian view.

Remember, Senator Paul was the one Senator who voted against a resolution that said the policy of the United States will not be to contain a nuclear-capable Iran. It was 90 to 1. To his credit, he felt that would be provocative and it may lead to a military conflict. He would rather have a nuclear-capable Iran than use military force, and he said so--to his credit. Ninety of us thought, well, we would like not to have a military conflict with Iran, but we are not going to contain a nuclear-capable Iran because it is impossible.

What would happen is that if Iran got a nuclear weapon, the Sunni Arab States would want a nuclear weapon, and most of us believe they would share the technology with the terrorists, who would wind up attacking Israel and the United States. It is not so much that I fear a missile coming from Iran; I fear, if they got a nuclear weapon or nuclear technology, they would give it to some terrorist organization-- like they gave IEDs to the Shia militia in Iraq to kill Americans--and they would wreak havoc on the world.

So we don't believe in letting them have it and trying to contain them because we believe their association with terrorism is too long and too deep, that it is too dangerous for Israel and too dangerous for us. But Senator Paul, to his credit, was OK with that; I just disagree with him.

As to what he is saying about the drone program, he has come our way some, and I appreciate that. Before, he had some doubt in his mind as to whether we should have killed Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen--an American citizen who had collaborated with al-Qaida and was actually one of the military leaders of al-Qaida in Yemen, who had radicalized Major Hasan, and who had been involved in planning terrorist attacks against U.S. forces throughout the region.

President Obama was informed through the military intelligence community channels of Anwar al-Awlaki's existence, all the videos he made supporting Jihad and killing Americans, and he, as Commander in Chief, designated this person as an enemy combatant.

Mr. President, you did what you had the authority to do, and I congratulate you in making that informed decision.

And the process to get on this target list is very rigorous--I think sometimes almost too rigorous.

But now, apparently, Senator Paul says it is OK to kill him because we have a photo of him with an RPG on his shoulder. He has moved the ball. He is saying now that he wants this President to tell him he will not use a drone to kill an American citizen sitting in a cafe having a cup of coffee who is not a combatant. I find the question offensive.

As much as I disagree with President Obama, as much as I support past Presidents, I do not believe that question deserves an answer because, as Senator McCain said, this President is not going to use a drone against a noncombatant sitting in a cafe anywhere in the United States, nor will future Presidents because if they do, they will have committed an act of murder. Noncombatants, under the law of war, are protected, not subject to being killed randomly.

So to suggest that the President won't answer that question somehow legitimizes that the drone program is going to result in being used against anybody in this room having a cup of coffee cheapens the debate and is something not worthy of the time it takes to answer.

It has been a long-held concept in American jurisprudence that when an American citizen sides with the enemies of our Nation, they can be captured, held, and treated as an enemy combatant; they have committed an act of war against our country, not a common crime.

In World War II, German saboteurs landed on Long Island. They had been planning and training in Germany to blow up a lot of infrastructure--and some of it was in Chicago. So they had this fairly elaborate plan to attack us. They came out of a submarine. They landed on Long Island. And the plan was to have American citizens sympathetic to the Nazi cause--of German origin, most of them--meet them and provide them shelter and comfort. Well, the FBI back then broke up that plot, and they were arrested. The American citizens were tried by military commission, they were found guilty, and a couple of them were executed.

Now, there has been a case in the war on terror where an American citizen was captured in Afghanistan. Our Supreme Court reaffirmed the proposition that we can hold one of our own as an enemy combatant when they align themselves with the forces against this country.

This Congress, right after the September 11 attacks, designated authorization to use military force against al-Qaida and affiliated groups. So the Congress has given every President since 9/11 the authority to use military force against al-Qaida and affiliated groups. And American citizens such as Anwar al-Awlaki and that guy Hamdi who was captured in Afghanistan have been treated as enemy combatants, and if President Obama does that, he is doing nothing new or novel.

What would be novel is for us to say that if a terrorist cell came to the United States, if an al-Qaida cell was operating in the United States, that is a common crime and the law of war doesn't apply. It would be the most perverse situation in the world for the Congress to say that the United States itself is a terrorist safe haven when it comes to legal rights; that we can blow you up with a drone overseas, we can capture you in Afghanistan and hold you under the law of war, but if there is a terrorist cell operating in the

United States, somehow you are a common criminal and we will read you your Miranda Rights.

I just have this one question to get Senator McCain's thoughts. I hope we realize that, hypothetically, there are patriot missile batteries all over Washington that could interdict an airplane coming to attack this Capitol or the White House or other vital government facilities.

I hope the Senator understands--Senator McCain is a fighter pilot-- that there are F-15s and F-16s on 3-minute to 5-minute alert all up and down the east coast. If there is a vessel coming into the United States or a plane has been hijacked or a ship has been hijacked that is loaded with munitions or the threat is real and they have taken over a craft and are about to attack us, I hope all of us would agree that using military force in that situation is not only lawful under the authorization to use military force, it is within the inherent authority of the Commander in Chief to protect us all.

It should be construed as a reasonable ability to defend the homeland against a real threat. And the question is, Do you feel threatened anymore? I do. I think al-Qaida is alive and well.

And to all those who have been fighting this war for a very long time, multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, who have tried to keep the war over there so it doesn't come here, to the failed plots that have been broken up by the CIA and the FBI, God bless you. We have to be right every time; they only have to be right once.

If you think the homeland is not a desire of al-Qaida, it is absolutely on the top of their list. They are recruiting American citizens to their cause, and unfortunately a few will probably go over to their side. Thank God it will be just a few.

But to take this debate into the absurd is what I object to. We can have reasonable disagreements about, the regulatory nature of the drone program should be under the Department of Defense and what kind of oversight Congress should have. I think that is a really good discussion, and I would like to work with Senator Durbin and others to craft--the Detainee Treatment Act was where Congress got involved with the executive branch to come up with a way to better handle the detainee issue.

But the one thing I have been consistent about is I believe there is 1 Commander in Chief, not 535, and I believe this Commander in Chief and all future Commanders in Chief are unique in our Constitution and have an indispensable role to play when it comes to protecting the homeland. If we have 535 commanders in chief, then we are going to be less safe. And if you turn over military decisions to courts, then I think you have done the ultimate harm to our Nation--you have criminalized the war. And I don't think our judiciary wants that.

So as much as I disagree with President Obama, I think you have been responsible in the use of the drone program overseas. I think you have been thorough in your analysis. I would like to make it more transparent. I would like to have more oversight.

As to the accusation being leveled against you that if you don't somehow answer this question, we are to assume you are going to use a drone--or the administration or future administrations would--to kill somebody who is a noncombatant--no intelligence to suggest there are enemy combatants sitting in a cafe hit by a Hellfire missile--I think it is really off base.

I have this one final thought. If there is an al-Qaida operative U.S. citizen who is helping the al-Qaida cause in a cafe in the United States, we don't want to blow up the cafe. We want to go in there and grab the person for intelligence purposes.

The reason we are using drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan is we don't have any military presence along the tribal border. The reason we are having to use drones is we can't capture people. The preference is to capture them, not to kill them. But there are certain areas where they operate that the only way we can get to them is through a drone strike.

That is a very good point.

I look forward to a discussion about how to deal with a drone program. It is just a tactical weapon. It is an air platform without a pilot.

Now, if there is a truck going toward a military base or nuclear powerplant, we have a lot of assets to interdict that truck. Maybe you don't need the F-16. But I guarantee you, if there was a hijacked aircraft coming to the Capitol, the President of the United States would be well within his rights to order the Patriot missile battery to shoot that plane down or have an F-16 shoot it down. And we are ready for that, by the way.

I would just suggest one thing. The number of Americans killed in the United States by drones is zero. The number of Americans killed in the United States by al-Qaida is 2,958. The reason it is not 2 million, 20 million, or 200 million is because they can't get the weapons to kill that many of us. The only reason it is 2,958 is because their weapons of choice couldn't kill more. Their next weapon of choice is not going to be a hijacked airplane up there; it is going to be some nuclear technology or a chemical weapon, a weapon of mass destruction. That is why we have to be on our guard.

When you capture someone who is associated with al-Qaida, the best thing is to hold them for interrogation purposes. We found bin Laden not through torture, we found bin Laden through a decade of putting the puzzle together.

Senator Durbin and Senator McCain, both are very effective advocates that we have to live within our values and that when we capture somebody, we are going to hold them under the law of war. We are going to explore the intelligence, but we are going to do it within the laws that we signed up to, such as the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture.

Absolutely.

If I can add, let me tell the Senator about imminent threat and military law. In Iraq we had disabled terrorist insurgents. There was a big debate in the Marine Corps because under military law when a lawful combatant, a person in uniform, has been disabled and it does not present an imminent threat, we don't have the ability to shoot them. OK.

The terrorists in Iraq put IEDs on wounded belligerents, unlawful enemy combatants. So the Marine Corps wrestled very long and hard with the rules of engagement. If you come upon somebody who is wounded, apparently was disabled, under what circumstances could you use lethal force because they may be booby-trapped.

To the Marine Corps' credit, they came up with a balance between who we are--we just don't shoot even our enemies who are helpless and wounded--and the ability for force protection.

Here is what I would say about the circumstance in question. The process of determining who an enemy combatant is has always been a military process. It is not a congressional debate. Our committees don't get a list of names and we vote on whether we think they are enemy combatants. Courts don't have trials over who is an enemy combatant. If there is a question about enemy combatant status under the Geneva Conventions, you are entitled to a single hearing officer and that is all. In World War II, there were a lot of people captured in German uniform who claimed they were made to wear the uniform by the Germans. All of them had a hearing on the battlefield by a single officer. It has been long held by military law it is a military decision, not judicial decision or legislative decision, to determine the enemy of the nation.

So President Obama has taken this far beyond what was envisioned. This administration has a very elaborate process to determine who should be determined to be an enemy combatant. I think it is thorough. I think it has many checks and balances. As much as I disagree with this President on many issues, I would never dream of taking that right away from him because he is the same person, the Commander in Chief, whoever he or she may be in the future, that we give the authority to order American citizens in battle where they may die. He has the authority to pick up a phone, Senator McCain, and say you will launch today, and you may not come back.

I cannot imagine a Congress who is OK with the authority to order an American citizen in battle--we don't want to take that away from him, I hope--that is uncomfortable with the same American determining who the enemy we face may be.

As to American citizens, here is the law. If you collaborate with al- Qaida or their affiliates and you are engaged in helping the enemy, you are subject to being captured or killed under the law of war. What is an imminent threat? The day that you associate yourself with al-Qaida and become part of their team, everywhere you go and everything you do presents a threat to the country. So why do we shoot people walking down the road in Pakistan? They don't have a weapon. There is no military person in front of them who is threatened. The logic is that once you join al-Qaida, you are a de facto imminent threat because the organization you are supporting is a threat.

For someone to suggest we have to let them walk down the road, go pick up a gun and head toward our soldiers before you can shoot them is not very healthy for the soldier they are trying to kill and it would be a total distortion of law as it exists. Back here at home, and I will conclude----

There are.

MR. DURBIN. I might add that in my conversations with the President he welcomes this. He has invited us to come up with a legal architecture to make certain it is consistent with existing precedent and military law and other court cases as well as our Constitution. I think that is a healthy environment for us to have this hearing and invite all points of view and try to come up with a reasonable conclusion.

I could not welcome that more. It worked with the Detainee Treatment Act, it worked with the Military Commissions Act. I think it is the right way to go.

If I could just have 2 minutes of wrapup, I will. To my fellow citizens, the chance of you being killed by a drone--because you go to a tea party rally or a moveon.org rally or any other political rally or you are just chatting on the Internet quietly at home--by your government through the use of a drone is zero, under this administration and future administrations. If that day ever happened, the President of the United States or whomever ordered such an attack would have committed murder and would be tried. I don't worry about that.

Here is what I worry about; that al-Qaida, who has killed 2,958 of us, is going to add to the total if we let our guard down. I will do everything in my power to protect this President, whom I disagree with a lot, and future Presidents from having an ill-informed Congress take over the legitimate authority under the Constitution and the laws of this land to be the Commander in Chief on behalf of all of us.

As to any American citizen thinking about joining with al-Qaida at home or abroad: You better think twice because here is what is going to come your way. If we can capture you, we will. You will be interrogated. You will go before a Federal judge and one day you will go before a court and you will have a lot of legal rights, but if you are found guilty, woe be unto you.

Here is another possibility. If you join with these thugs and these nuts to attack your homeland and if we have no ability to capture you, we will kill you and we will do it because you made us. The process of determining whether you have joined al-Qaida is not going to be some Federal court trial. It is not going to be a committee meeting in the Congress. Because if we put those conditions on our ability to defend ourselves, we cannot act in real time.

Bottom line: I think we are at war. I think we are at war with an enemy who would kill us all if he could, and every war America has been in we have recognized the difference between fighting crime and fighting a war. If you believe, as I do, we are at war, those who aid our enemies are not going to be treated as if they robbed a liquor store. They are going to be treated as the military threat they are.

I thank the Senator from New Hampshire who authored this amendment which Senator McCain and I support. She spent a lot of time and effort trying to fix sequestration in the first year and trying to look at programs that are not as essential to the Nation, in my view, as the Department of Defense.

Let me put this in perspective. I don't need a poll to tell me what I think about this. The majority leader referenced some poll out there about where the American people are. I appreciate polling. It is a tool all politicians use. I don't need one here to know where I stand.

The question is, Do the people in South Carolina think I am right or wrong? I will have an election in 2014. I am certainly willing to stand before the people of South Carolina and say what we are doing in this sequestration proposal is ill-conceived, dangerous, and despicable.

Let's start with the Commander in Chief. This is what Mr. Lew said, our new Treasury Secretary:

Make no mistake, the sequester is not meant to be policy.

Rather, it is meant to be an unpalatable option that all

parties want to avoid.

That was their view of sequestration.

According to Bob Woodward and comments since, this idea came out of the White House. The White House thought that if we created a penalty clause for supercommittee failure called sequestration, where we would have to take $600 billion of the $1.2 trillion out of the Defense Department, that would make the supercommittee more likely to achieve a result. If we took $600 billion out of nondefense, that would put pressure on the supercommittee to get the right result.

We are going to spend $45 trillion over the next decade. The next question for the country is, Could we save $1.2 trillion without destroying the Defense Department and raising taxes? Yes, we could if we tried. Put me in the camp that this is an achievable spending cut. This is not something that is unachievable.

What Senator McConnell said is very important. Two-thirds of the budget, almost, is exempt from sequestration. When you hear Republicans say surely we can find $85 billion out of $3.5 trillion in spending--to my Republican colleagues, stop saying that. That is not accurate. We are not cutting $85 billion out of $3.5 trillion. We are cutting $85 billion out of about 1.3, 1.25, because the Budget Control Act took off the table two-thirds of the government from being cut.

I will get to the President in a minute, but let me talk a little bit about my party, the party of Ronald Reagan, the party of peace through strength. This is the party that believes--at least we used to--the No. 1 obligation of the Federal Government, before it does anything else, is to get national security right. That was what made Ronald Reagan.

That is what I believe. I don't need a poll to tell me that. I don't care if 90 percent of the people in the country said the Defense Department is not my primary concern when it comes to Federal budgeting. Count me in the 10 percent.

The party of Ronald Reagan, even though it came out of the White House, this very bad idea, agreed to it. What did we agree to? We agreed to take off the table two-thirds of the Federal Government.

Pell grants. My sister received a Pell grant when my parents died. It is a very important program. It helps people go to college who are low- income Americans. In 2008 it was $16.25 billion and in 2013 it is $41.57 billion.

Food stamps. A lot of people need help, I understand that. The Food Stamp Program has doubled since 2008.

I guess the Republican Party believes the Pell grants, food stamps, the FAA, and home mortgage interest deduction, and all this other stuff in the Federal Government should be shielded, but those who have been fighting the war that protects us all from radical Islam should be on the chopping block. Ronald Reagan should be rolling over in his grave. Shame on everybody who agreed this was a good idea on our side.

I cannot tell you how disgusted I am with the concept that when it comes time to cut--because the budget politicians can't reach an agreement--we fire the soldiers and keep the politicians and every other social program intact and put half the cuts on those who are fighting the war.

So the next time you go to a military base, good luck. We will look those men and women in the eye--I don't see how you could. I don't see how you could go onto a military base or see somebody in the airport, shake their hand and thank them for their service given the fact you have taken the Defense Department and made it something not very special anymore.

Secretary Panetta said: After 10 years of these cuts we would have the smallest ground forces since 1940, the smallest number of ships since 1915, and the smallest Air Force in its history. This isn't like the drawdowns in the past when the potential enemy was disabled and in some way rendered ineffective. We are still confronting a number of threats in the world. It would decimate our defense. It would cripple us in terms of our ability to protect this country.

It would result in the hollowing out of our forces. It would terribly weaken our ability to respond to threats in the world. It is a ship without sailors. It is a brigade without bullets. It is an airwing without enough trained pilots. It is a paper tiger. In effect, it invites aggression. A hollow military doesn't happen by accident; it comes from poor stewardship and poor leadership.

I couldn't agree more.

To my Democratic colleagues, we are not going to raise any more taxes to spend money on the government. The next time I raise taxes, we are going to try to get out of debt. We are $17 trillion in debt, and every time there is a crisis in this Nation you want to raise taxes to pay for the government we already have. We have enough money to run this government. We need to spend it better.

To my Republican colleagues, there is not enough flexibility in the world to change the top line number. You either believe Secretary Panetta or you don't. You either believe every military commander--I don't trust everything a general tells me, but the question for me is do I trust all generals who tell me the same thing. Can all of them be wrong? It is one thing to have a dispute with a general or an admiral, but when every general and admiral tells you the same thing--and if we don't believe them, we need to fire them--we act accordingly.

As to the President, you have one obligation that nobody in this body has. You are the Commander in Chief of the United States. They trust you, they need you, and your primary goal is to take care of those in uniform and their families.

Mr. President, you have let them down. My party let them down, but you are different from any other politician. You are the Commander in Chief. How you could have considered this as an

acceptable outcome just makes me sick to my stomach. I don't know how any Commander in Chief could have been comfortable with the idea that if the supercommittee fails, we are going to cut the military. You haven't lifted a finger in the last year to do anything about it. You finally go to a naval base down in Virginia, after the election, a few days before this kicks in.

To me, this is pathetic leadership by the Commander in Chief. This is an abandonment of the Republican Party's belief in peace through strength. This is a low point in my time in the U.S. Congress.

We are not going to raise taxes to fund the government. We are going to raise taxes in my construct to pay down debt and fix entitlements. I cannot tell you how ashamed I am of what we have done to those who have been busting their butts for the last 11 years, to those who have been deployed time and time again, and to their families.

The thank-you you receive from your President and your Congress is we are going to put your way of life on the chopping block. God, if we can't do better than that then all of us should be fired--politicians.

Well, I don't know if they do or not. We have done everything we can--the three of us--to tell them what is coming our way. All I can say is that every general and admiral who has told us the same thing, I respect what they are telling us. Leon Panetta is a Democrat, but he is dead right. He has been a great Secretary of Defense. I trust their judgment.

I know enough about the military budget to know if we take $600 billion out of their budget, on top of the $487 billion, plus the $89 billion, we are going to make them less able to defend our Nation, putting our men and women at risk, and that is what this debate is about.

I wish to thank Senator Ayotte, who came up with an alternative to avoid this without raising taxes.

My time is up. I don't know who is next, but I yield the floor.

We reported Senator Hagel's nomination out at 5 o'clock. I would argue that the hearing was interesting, I think at times unnerving. Here it is Thursday. So there are some questions being asked by our colleagues that I think are legitimate. Some are kind of creating a new standard. I am confident, in the next week,

unless there is some explosive bombshell that I cannot quite get my hands around, I intend to vote for cloture and against the nomination. I am one, along with Senator McCain, who believes filibustering should be a rare thing.

But what we are doing is saying the debate time for Senator Hagel is not yet over, since he just got reported out Tuesday at 5 o'clock. Put yourself in the shoes of the colleagues who are not on this committee. This has been a very controversial nominee. I will say the reason we voted for Senator Kerry on the same day he got reported out of committee and he got 97 votes, that all of us felt comfortable with the nomination. There are very uncomfortable things about this nomination. But having said that, I do believe that unless there is something new that comes out, we should proceed to a vote, up or down. I am willing to invoke cloture because I think, as Senator McCain said, the week time period would give us a chance to answer these questions.

Let me inform my colleagues that just about an hour ago, there was a press report that a speech was given by Senator Hagel--I can't remember the group. But one of his aides posted--based on his notes what he had said the next day on a Web site.

During that speech, according to this aide, Senator Hagel said the U.S. State Department was an extension of the Israeli Government. Things such as that are unnerving. There is at least one speech he gave that he did not report that we think there is a copy of. We should get it in the next few days. That is why I would oppose cloture today, vote for it after the recess.

Madam President, I have 5 minutes. Would the Presiding Officer let me know when 4 minutes has elapsed.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an opinion piece by the editorial board for the Washington Post dated December 18, 2012.

This is an editorial about the nomination of Senator Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. The Washington Post said:

Mr. Hagel's stated positions of critical issues ranging

from defense spending to Iran fall well to the left of those

proposed by Mr. Obama during his first term and place him

near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm

him.

The last line is:

Mr. Hagel is an honorable man who served the country with

distinction as a soldier in Vietnam and who was respected by

his fellow Senators, but Mr. Obama can make a better choice

for defense secretary.

That sort of sums up where I am: a fine man. If it were about friendship, there wouldn't be a problem. This is about the times in which we live. And I want to echo the statements of the Washington Post about him being out of the mainstream.

We have had two hearings, and we will have a couple of votes in the next week or so. I would say to my colleagues regarding the cloture vote today, they have every right to say now is not the time to end the debate about Senator Hagel. He was reported out of the committee at 5 o'clock Tuesday. There are some legitimate questions and information we haven't gathered, and we should be able to have an opportunity to look at that, and people not already committed should have a chance to review this information. So the idea of waiting until after the break makes eminent sense. I think we will be better informed regarding our decision. Debate should continue for at least that period of time.

Senator Kerry was able to get out of committee and to be voted on the same day because all of us felt comfortable with John Kerry, even though we may have disagreed with his politics. I believe John Kerry is a good man. We are on opposite sides of the issues sometimes when it comes to Iraq and initially Syria, but I have always thought he was in the mainstream of the debate. So he got 97 votes because we felt comfortable with him. You can tell people on our side, and some others, quite frankly, in the Democratic Party have expressed some discomfort.

I would argue that after the hearing there is more discomfort than there was before the hearing. Senator Inhofe and Senator Levin, we had a very good hearing, but to me it was unnerving, some of the things that came out of that hearing. The performance created more questions and doubts than it created confidence.

That is the question the Washington Post posed. It is one thing to be in the left lane, the right lane, or the center lane, but I would say Senator Hagel's statements and votes put him in a league of his own. And that is why I will vote no.

When it comes to Israel and his statement that ``The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. I'm not an Israeli Senator, I'm a United States Senator,'' Senator Hagel, to his credit, said that was inappropriate and he apologized. But think for a minute how many of my colleagues would have said that. I asked him to name one Senator who has been intimidated, and he couldn't name one. I asked him to name one policy we have enacted because of the Jewish Israeli lobby, and he couldn't name a policy.

Now we find out today--and I don't know if this has been verified, but it is posted--that an aide of his reported that during a speech Senator Hagel gave several years ago he said the U.S. Department of State was an extension of the Israeli Government. Now this is showing a chip on one shoulder about Israel--an unhealthy statement, to say the least, and I think patently false. But it is unnerving to a guy like me, and I can only imagine what kind of signal a statement such as that sends in these dangerous times.

On Iran he was one of two Senators to vote against renewing unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran and Libya in 2001. He was one of twelve Senators who did not sign a letter asking the European Union to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization. He refused to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization in 2007----

I thank the Presiding Officer. While they were killing our soldiers in Iraq. He refused to sign a letter to President George W. Bush, he said, to engage in direct unconditional comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran. He was for that, telling Bush to do it unconditionally. He voted against comprehensive Iranian sanctions.

He was one of two Senators who failed to sign a letter to President Clinton showing unconditional support for the State of Israel.

I would argue that this man's record, when it comes to Iran and Israel, and statements he has made, puts him well out of the mainstream. The Washington Post was right when they said he is on the fringe. And now is not the time to have somebody on the fringe serving as Secretary of Defense when it comes to Iran and Israel. For that reason, I will vote no. I will oppose cloture because debate should continue. When we get back, unless there is a real bombshell, I will vote for cloture and move on to his nomination.

I yield the floor.

Well, I thank Senator McCain. My first view is it is better not to go over the cliff than to go over the cliff. But it is also important, as my colleague just said, to understand what we have accomplished.

Let's assume for a moment--let's hope this is a good assumption--that we are reaching an agreement by the end of the day that raises tax rates on people who make over $400,000. I don't think that is a good idea because I think it hurts job creation. The better way to get revenue is to eliminate deductions and exemptions for businesses and wealthy individuals and take that money back into the treasury, lower tax rates to create jobs and pay down some debt. That is what Bowles- Simpson did.

Not one bipartisan group, I say to the Senator, that has tried to solve our debt problem and our spending problem and our revenue problem has suggested raising tax rates. Bowles-Simpson, a bipartisan group, actually lowered tax rates, and they did that by eliminating deductions and exemptions, and they put a lot of money on the debt. They had a 25- percent corporate rate, and the top personal rate was 30 percent. They took this $1.2 trillion we give out every year in exemptions and deductions to the favored few and brought it back into the treasury. They paid down the debt and they lowered tax rates to help create jobs.

This President's approach is the opposite of Simpson-Bowles and the Gang of 6. We had six Senators, three Democrats and three Republicans. How did they try to solve our long-term problems? They reformed the Tax Code by eliminating virtually all deductions. They took that money back into the treasury, they paid down debt, and they lowered tax rates, just as Simpson-Bowles.

Now, this President has taken another path. He wants to raise tax rates to generate revenue. My concern is the higher the tax burdens in America, the less likely to create a job in America. There are better ways to generate revenues. But he has gotten his way and he is going to win.

Hats off to the President for having the courage of your convictions. You said during the campaign you were going to raise tax rates on everybody making above $250,000. Well, you probably are not going to get that, but you are going to be somewhere around $400,000.

The money to be generated, you say you want it to go on the deficit. Well, that is good. Yesterday, the proposal by our Democratic colleagues was to take that increased revenue from raising tax rates and spend $600 billion on the government. That is why they don't have a deal.

I am willing to swallow my pride and vote for a tax rate increase-- even though I don't think it is good policy--just to save the country from going into the abyss and destroying the military. I am willing to do that, and I will take some heat. But that is the way democracies are. You win some, you lose some.

What I am not going to do is raise tax rates on anybody and take that additional money to grow the government when we all know we need to get out of debt. That is what was going to happen yesterday.

By 2037, the amount of debt we have in the Nation will be twice the size of our economy. Every child born in America owes $51,000 of debt on the day of their birth. When we look at Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, the three big spending programs, called entitlements, in about 25 years the cost of those programs is going to consume all the revenue coming into the government, and there will be no money for the Defense Department.

So when the President said today that round 2 will be the debt ceiling, he is right. He won round 1. But we have done nothing, as Senator McCain indicated, to lower the deficit in any real way.

If we took every penny of the money we are generating from raising tax rates for people above $400,000, that is 6 percent of the national deficit. That doesn't even begin to solve the problem.

So this is a hollow victory--a victory of revenue with no change in the Nation's march toward becoming like Greece, no real reduction in our deficit or our debt. The good news is that we are one big deal away from dominating the 21st century because America's problems are less than most other places. The bad news is that deal is elusive. It requires Presidential leadership, and I haven't seen much of it. If we stay on the course we are on today, we are going to lose the American dream because our grandchildren and your children cannot pay off the debt we are about to pass on to them.

So in about 2 months round 2 begins, and we will be asked to raise the debt ceiling. Trust me, I don't want to default on our obligations. But in August of 2011, we borrowed $2.1 trillion because we ran out of money, and 42 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed money. If we don't keep borrowing, we have to cut the government by 42 percent. Nobody suggests that is a good idea overnight.

But here is what I will not do. I will not continue borrowing money unless we address in the process what got us into debt to begin with. So when we have to raise the debt ceiling again, I want to make a simple request: Let's come up with a plan bipartisan in nature to save Social Security and Medicare from bankruptcy because they are going to run out of money and become insolvent in the next 20 years. Let's also create a spending reduction plan that will allow us not to become like Greece.

If you want to raise more revenue by capping deductions, count me in because we will need more revenue. But in 17 months, ladies and gentlemen, we spent $2.1 trillion. We are burning through money like crazy. It took us 200 years to borrow the first $2 trillion. We spent $2.1 trillion of borrowed money in 17 months. That has to stop.

So to President Obama: Congratulations on your tax rate increase. You fought hard and you won. I hope I have the courage of my convictions not to raise the debt ceiling until you and others will work with me to find a plan to begin to get us out of debt. You mentioned Medicare today in your speech, and I am glad you did.

In 2024, it completely becomes insolvent. Think of how many people in this country need Medicare and will need it 20 years from now. If we don't do something, it is going to run out of money. The age of eligibility for Medicare recipients is 65. It hasn't changed one day since 1965 when it first started. We are all living longer. I propose we adjust the retirement age to 67 over a 10-year or 20-year period. That will save the program in many ways.

People at my income level shouldn't get any money from the government to help buy prescription drugs. I should pay the full cost because I can afford to. That is called means testing. This CPI thing you hear a lot about, that is how you evaluate benefits. That needs to be reevaluated based on real inflation. We are overestimating the cost and adding burdens to these programs.

That is kind of technical stuff, but here is what I am telling you. I am not going to vote to raise the debt ceiling until we do something to save Social Security and Medicare from bankruptcy, and I am not going to borrow a bunch more money that our grandkids are going to have to pay off without a plan to get out of debt. If that is too much to ask, so be it. But it is not too much to ask of you at home because if you spend a lot more money than you make, you go to jail. We call it good governance. That has to stop.

So round 2 is coming, and we are going to have one hell of a contest about the direction and the vision of this country.

The President we need 2 months from now is going to be the one who will come down here and talk with us and work with us and not have a press conference. Because, Mr. President, I want to make you a historic President. I want, on your 4-year watch, for us to change the course of the country. I want to save Medicare and Social Security from insolvency, and I will give

you full credit as the Presidential leader if you will help us as a nation find a way to save these programs from bankruptcy. I want to turn around the spending problem we have and prevent us from becoming Greece. And if you will lead I will follow. Yes, I will raise more revenue in a responsible way. But without you, it is going to be hard for us to get there.

So the next time we meet, it is going to be a round of debt ceiling, and the image I want is not a bunch of people behind the President who are clapping for him, but Members of Congress--Republicans and Democrats--behind the President, clapping for the President because he signed a bill that will save all of us from a certain fate. And our fate is being sealed as I talk unless we make changes.

We cannot survive on the course we are taking today. The good news is, with some bipartisanship and Presidential leadership, we still have time to turn around this country and actually dominate the 21st century. It is going to take some pain and it is going to take some sacrifice.

One final story. When I was 21 my mom died. When I was 22 my dad died, 15 months later. My family owned a liquor store, a restaurant, and a pool room. Everything I know about politics I learned in the pool room. My sister was 13. My uncle took over the businesses. He left the textile industry to run the businesses. We moved in with my aunt and uncle. They never made over $25,000 or $30,000 their entire life. And if it weren't for Social Security survivor's benefits for my sister, we would have had a hard time making it. She went to college on a Pell grant.

I am 57. I am not married. I don't have any kids. I am part of the problem. That is what is happening all over America. But when I was 22, we needed every penny we could get in Social Security benefits. Today, I could easily give up $500 when I retire and not feel it at all, and I could pay more for Medicare--and I would, and I am going to ask people in my situation to do that. We just have to have the courage to ask. I think most Americans would say yes.

So Medicare and Social Security are not programs to me. I know what they do for real people, and if we do nothing, in 2032--which seems forever but it is not--Social Security becomes insolvent, and we have to cut benefits 25 percent for everybody, whether they can afford it or not or raise taxes by 38 percent, whether businesses can afford it or not. And the way you solve that is to reform the programs like Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill.

Mr. President, I am willing to play, along with my other Republican colleagues, the role of Tip O'Neill. You just need to play the role of Ronald Reagan.

So the next time we talk about fiscal problems in America, I want a news conference where the President is center stage, not surrounded by political activists but surrounded by Republicans and Democrats who can celebrate accomplishing something that we should all be proud of.

They tell me this is the least productive Congress in the history of the Nation. If it is not, I would hate to be in the one that was. We haven't done a whole lot up here.

I know Senator McCain has been here a few years now. I ask the Senator, what is his opinion of where we are going as a nation and how we get along with each other?