Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Mike Mullen who is retiring as the 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after more than 43 years of distinguished service to our country.

Admiral Mullen began his rise in the Navy as a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy, where he became a proud graduate in 1968. Upon graduation, then Ensign Mullen reported aboard the USS Collett, deploying to the Western Pacific and participating in combat operations off the coast of Vietnam. Eventually, his career at sea would include serving aboard six other warships, including command of three, as well as command of the George Washington Carrier Strike Group and U.S. Second Fleet.

He supplemented his systems engineering degree from Annapolis with a master of science degree in operations research from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA, and a business degree from the advanced management program at Harvard.

Ashore, he similarly distinguished himself with tours at the U.S. Naval Academy, the Bureau of Naval Personnel, the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations as well as in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

With an already exemplary career of service at sea and ashore, Admiral Mullen became the Navy's 32nd Vice Chief of Naval Operations in 2003. During the first half of 2005, he served as Commander of NATO's Joint Force Command Naples and Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe, leading the Alliance's peacekeeping operations in the Balkans and its critical training mission in Iraq.

In July of 2005, he became the top uniformed leader in the Navy as the 28th Chief of Naval Operations. With the Nation fighting two wars, he oversaw the service's efforts to man, train, and equip our Navy to fulfill its traditional missions at sea. Facing innovative and nontraditional enemies, Admiral Mullen conceived and championed the Navy's vital contribution to the fight on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dedicated to keeping the sea lanes free, deterring aggression, and maintaining our Nation's maritime superiority, he also led efforts to stabilize the Navy's shipbuilding program to support a 313-ship fleet.

On October 1, 2007, Admiral Mullen assumed duties as the 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Facing a myriad of challenges, and with ongoing conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan, he worked tirelessly with our Nation's leadership to oversee multiple, sustained joint military operations. Admiral Mullen's efforts played a vital role in disrupting terrorist networks, providing humanitarian assistance at home and abroad, and improving the security and stability in Iraq.

Recognizing the danger of an Allied failure in Afghanistan, he became an early and vocal proponent of resourcing the war by expanding counterinsurgency capabilities and fostering closer ties with strategically vital Pakistan.

Never forgetting that those who return from war often continue to bear scars--both seen and unseen--Admiral Mullen and his wife Deborah passionately represented the interests of the

men and women returning from the battlefield. He initiated an unprecedented nationwide dialogue to advance awareness and support for the many issues facing our warriors, veterans, and their families.

Many have recognized Admiral Mullen's dedication to service with a wide range of awards and decorations. But I know first hand that his truest reward is the satisfaction he must feel for a lifetime of service to a country he so deeply loves. Admiral Mullen's commitment to the Americans who have given so much will endure well beyond his days in uniform.

I will add that Admiral Mullen's legacy will continue in another way after retirement. He and Deborah continue to proudly support their sons, John and Michael, as they pursue their own uniformed service in support of the world's greatest Navy.

The U.S. Navy and our military will never forget the service of Mike Mullen, one of its most respected and valued leaders, who took the helm during a dynamic and uncertain time in our Nation's history. And none of us will ever forget how he led--with humility, a selfless devotion to others, and integrity.

Please join me in recognizing and commending ADM Mike Mullen for a lifetime of service to his country and to wish him the best in his retirement. May God bless Mike and Deborah, and their family, for all they have given and continue to give our country. We remain in their debt.

I thank the Chair.

This is very important. We are broke at home, and there are a lot of things we could and should be doing for our States. I want to try to get our fiscal house in order, but we have to defend this country. The foreign operations account is national security in another form. If you just do not always want to bomb people, you need to help people help themselves, and the money in this account will allow people to stand up against terrorism and do things America has been doing for a long time; that is, helping people who really would be better off for the experience and have a kindness toward us.

If you think Israel needs a friend now, this would hurt our relationship in terms of support to Israel. So all of those in this body who want to make sure Israel gets the right message at a time of need, please vote against this amendment because it will hurt our relationship.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to MAJ Sam Glover for his extraordinary service to the Nation while serving in the U.S. Army for the past 18 years. His record of distinguished service includes tours in Korea, Bosnia, Iraq, and a nominative assignment as a defense fellow in the U.S. Senate.

Major Glover started his military career as an enlisted soldier--a combat engineer--in the South Carolina National Guard. After graduating from South Carolina State University, Major Glover was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Army Aviation Corps. After completing requirements to become a UH-60 Blackhawk pilot, he served in Korea, where he served as a platoon leader for Bravo Company, 1-52nd Aviation Regiment supporting South Korean Special Operations Forces.

After his Korea tour, Major Glover was assigned to Fort Bragg, NC. Major Glover deployed with his unit to Bosnia-Herzegovina in support of Operation Joint Forge. During this deployment he acted as forward detachment commander during the Kosovo air strikes. In addition, he provided aerial security support at the G-8 conference in Sarajevo, Bosnia, for President Clinton and other key leaders.

Following his Fort Bragg assignment, he assumed command of HHC-1- 212th Aviation Company at Fort Rucker, AL. As the company commander, Major Glover managed the two largest Army heliports, training over 2,000 students and as an instructor pilot received his Army Senior Aviator Badge flying over 1,500 hours.

Following company command, Major Glover became a system evaluator for the procurement of new military system and equipment at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. He was then deployed to Iraq as an operations officer of a military transition team that trained over 830 Iraqis and conducted over 100 combat missions.

After he returned from Iraq, Major Glover was selected as an Army comptroller and worked in the Pentagon at the Army Asymmetric Warfare Office, AAWO in the Improvised Explosive Device, IED, Division. During that time he was one of the original combat vehicle architects of the Mine Resistant Ambush Program, MRAP, and worked with Congress and defense leaders to fund 12,000 vehicles valued at $17 billion.

Major Glover was then selected as a Department of Defense congressional fellow and served as an Army fellow in the U.S. Senate for 1 year. After his tenure as a military fellow, he most recently served as Army congressional legislative liaison in the Army Senate Liaison Division. He represented the Army on Capitol Hill and conducted numerous codels and staffdels across the world. He has coordinated over 1,500 Capitol Hill and White House tours for State, local, and military constituents.

Mr. President, on behalf of the grateful nation, I join my colleagues today in saying thank you to MAJ Sam Glover for his extraordinary dedication to duty and service to the country throughout his distinguished career in the U.S. Army.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the passing of Dr. Larry Manning Ross, a great South Carolinian, who not only served his country honorably in uniform but also worked tirelessly as a psychologist for many years.

Dr. Ross graduated from Citadel in 1963 and served in the Vietnam war, where as a captain he was wounded in 1968. For his actions, Dr. Ross was awarded the Silver Star and the Vietnam Cross. After being medically discharged from the military, Dr. Ross went on to earn a PhD in psychology and taught at the University of South Carolina. He served in private practice until he could no longer practice.

Dr. Ross was an incredible man who made countless sacrifices for his family and for his country and for that I would like to honor him.

If I may, trying to respond to the Senator's question, the answer is yes. But you don't have to believe me or Senator McCain. Ambassador Jeffrey, who is our U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, told us back in June when he was getting confirmed that all civilian movements are accompanied by American forces, to some extent, a mixture of Iraqi and American forces.

We are about to pass the baton between the Department of Defense to the Department of State. The civilian-military partnership that has been formed over the last decade has been working very well, and the future of Iraq is in Iraqis' hands, but they do need our help. As Senator McCain said, we are helping ourselves.

On June 24, 2010, we asked General Odierno, Where are we in terms of Iraq? How would you evaluate our situation? And since this is football season----

Yes. This was at a hearing for confirmation for General Austin. He said, We are inside the 10-yard line.

Well, this is football season. I think most Americans can understand this great progress. He said, We have four downs. This is first in 10, on the 10, we have 4 downs. He felt good that we can get it into the end zone, but getting it into the end zone is going to require a follow-on presence in 2012.

Having said that, I know most Americans want our troops to come home. Include me in that group. We are going to go from 50,000 to zero at the end of this year if something new doesn't happen. I am confident the Iraqis want our continued presence in a reasoned way.

What do they need that we can provide? Intelligence gathering. We have the best intelligence-gathering capability of anyone in the world, and it helps the Iraqis stay ahead of their enemies. And who are their enemies? The Iranians are trying to destabilize this young democracy. Ambassador Jeffrey, who is a good man, said the reason we need to get Iraq right is it helps our national security interests.

Show me an example in history where two democracies went to war. There is not any. So if he could take Saddam Hussein's dictatorship and replace it with a representative government, that is a huge advancement in our national security interests over time.

What do the Iraqis need militarily? They don't have a mature air force, so General Austin said it would be in our interests not only to sell them planes, F-16s, but actually train them how to use those airplanes. They have an infant navy to patrol their coast, to protect them against threats there. It is in our interests not only to train and develop the Iraqi police and army but to make sure that our civilians who are going to help build this new democracy can travel without fear and without unnecessary casualties, because the Iranians are going to try to undercut us at every turn. That means targeting American forces left behind.

What else do they need? Counterterrorism. Al-Qaida and other groups, other radical groups, are going to try to come back into Iraq and destabilize what we have done. We have seen some signs of that. We have had 60 al-Qaida types released from American custody to Iraqi custody, and some are back out on the streets. So a counterterrorism footprint would be smart. Vice President Biden is right about this. A CT footprint in Afghanistan and Iraq makes sense.

When you add up all these missions, intelligence gathering, training, embedding, counterterrorism, force protection----

That is a very good point, and that is exactly sort of where I was going to take this. That requires the footprint of thousands. We don't need 5,000, but I think 10,000 when you add it up is probably the bare minimum to do this. Because the commanders who are policing the Kurdish-Arab dispute boundary line in the northern part of Iraq have come up with a very novel approach, and I want to give the administration credit and the military credit. What they have done is they have taken Peshmergas, which are basically Kurdish militia, integrated them with Iraqi national security forces and American forces to form companies that eventually go to brigades, where they will get to know each other and work together as a team. I think any neutral observer would tell you our presence in Kirkuk has prevented a shooting conflict in the past. That is what President Barzai is worried about in the Kurdish areas. That is 5,000, he said. He has said we will need 5,000 troops here for a while to make sure this new concept of jointness develops over time. So when you add the whole package, you are somewhere around 10,000 plus.

To the administration, not only is bipartisanship desired in national security, I think it is required. We can look back and pat each other on the back or blame each other about Iraq. That is not what I am trying to do. We are where we are, and we are in a pretty decent place to the point that the Iranians are going nuts. They are trying to undercut Iraq's national development, because their biggest nightmare is to have a representative democracy on their border. That will incite their own people in Iran to ask for more freedom.

So, please, to the Obama administration, don't make the same mistakes at the end that the Bush administration made in the beginning. I can say with some credibility that I argued against my own political party infrastructure, that Senators McCain and Lieberman and others--we went there enough to know it was not a few dead-enders, that the whole security footprint was not sufficient, and the model to change Iraq was not working.

It was General Petraeus's model that was adopted, to President Bush's credit. That was a hard decision for President Bush. The war was incredibly unpopular. People were frustrated. It seemed it was a lost cause, and President Bush went against what was the political tide at the moment. I am glad he did.

I ask President Obama to consider the long-term national security interests of the United States and do what Senator McCain suggested-- not what he suggested, what our military suggested: define missions. Is it important to have some support to intelligence gathering? I would say yes. Training the Army and Air Force and Navy? I would say yes. Having some presence to protect our civilians who are going to be the largest groups? I would say overwhelmingly yes. Does it make sense to have some American military support in the Kurdish-Arab dispute area? Overwhelmingly yes.

We will stand by you. I think most Americans are frustrated and war weary, but they don't want to lose. We are very close to changing Iraq by helping the Iraqi people. We can't change Iraq; only they can. They want to.

We talk about the deaths of Americans and it breaks our hearts. For every American who has died there have probably been 10 Iraqis. This has not been easy for people in Iraq. That is why I never lost faith. What kept me going with Iraq and Afghanistan is I have been there enough to know there are people in those countries who want the same thing for their children as most people in this body want for theirs.

To be a judge in America, one can get criticized. It is a tough job. One can lose their life in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I have personally met people who decided to step to the plate--to be lawyers, be judges, be policemen--who got killed. They knew what was coming their way.

It is in our national security interest to help this infant democracy, and that is what it is. Corruption still abounds, there are tons of problems in Iraq, but they are on the right trajectory.

I am asking the administration: Listen to your commanders. And 25,000, in my view--I am not a commander, but I could understand why the President would say that is a bridge too far. I know what the generals have recommended. It goes from the midteens to the midtwenties. But somewhere to the north of 10, given my understanding of Iraq, I think it will work. But I know we are broke. One thing I can tell you is, we cannot afford to lose after all this investment. The price and cost of losing in Iraq now would be devastating for years to come.

If we do not see this through, who would help us in the future push back against extremism, knowing that America left at a time when they were asking us to stay? I am confident Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds want us there in reasonable numbers to make sure they can have the help they need to get this right.

Apparently, the decision has not been made yet. I am urging the administration to look at the missions, be reasonable, understand that we cannot give the military all they want all the time.

This is the decision of the Commander in Chief. He is a good man. It is his call. But the one thing I offer and I think the three of us offer in these very difficult times when America is under siege at home is to be supportive voices for the idea we cannot retreat and become fortress America.

Look what happened when a few people from Afghanistan, in far away places, for less than $1 million--what havoc they wreaked on our country. This Sunday is the 10th anniversary. I am hopeful as we get to the 10th anniversary we can look back and say we have defended America in a bipartisan way. It is not just luck that has prevented us from being attacked. The President deserves a lot of credit for going after bin Laden, a lot of credit for adding to troops in Afghanistan when people were ready to come home.

I urge this administration to listen to our military leaders and finish this right. It would be a tragedy upon a tragedy for us to be inside the 10-yard line and fumble at a time when we can score a touchdown--not only for our national security but for fundamental change in the Mideast. If we get it right in Iraq, the Arab spring is going to get the support it needs and deserves. If we fail in Iraq, it will be just repeating history's mistakes.

The Bush administration did change. Thank God they did because they did not get it right early on. We are so close to the end now. Let's be cautious, let's be reasonable, let's err on the side of making sure we can sustain what we have all fought for. I tell you this: History will judge everybody well, including President Obama--and that would be OK with me--if we can turn Saddam Hussein's dictatorship into a representative government that would be aligned with us and be a voice of moderation for the rest of the 21st century.

I would like to get Senator Lieberman's thoughts. It is one thing for me to talk about this in South Carolina. But even in South Carolina, a very red State, people are war weary and they are not excited about having to stay in Iraq in 2012. I think they will listen to reason. But during the darkest days of this effort in Iraq, Senator McCain went the road less traveled by saying we need more at a time when the polls said everybody is ready to come home. I do not question anybody's patriotism. It was a hard call. It was a tough fight, and there were no easy answers. But I am glad we chose to do what we did. I am glad President Bush adjusted.

But Senator Lieberman, above all of us quite frankly, literally risked his political career because he believed that what happened in Iraq mattered to the United States.

The Senator was right. I want to thank him on behalf of all those who served in Iraq for giving them the time and resources to prove we could get it right.

I would like the Senator to, if he doesn't mind, to share his thoughts with the body about how we should finish Iraq.

I will add, if I may, the 3,000 number does not allow the missions that are obvious to most everybody who has looked at Iraq to be performed in a successful manner. That is the bottom line. That is why no one has thrown out 3,000 before. Can you do it with 10,000? That is where you are pushing the envelope. The Kurdish-Arab boundary dispute almost went hot. This new plan we have come up with to integrate the Peshmurga, the Iraqi security forces with some Americans, will pay dividends over time. Mr. President, 5,000 is what the American commander said he needed to continue that plan. We have a plan to even wind down that number. It is just going to take a while. When it comes to Iraq, I can tell you right now I would not want our American civilians to be without some American military support, given what I know is coming to Iraq from Iran.

If the Senator will yield for a second, that is a good point. We have been asked to go by both administrations. The Iraqis have a political problem. That is not lost upon us. Most people in most countries don't want hundreds of thousands of foreign troops roaming around their country forever. So the Iraqis have been upfront with us. We want to continue the partnership, but it needs to be at a smaller level. They are absolutely right. I don't buy one moment that there is a movement in Iraq saying we will take 3,000, not 1 soldier more. I think what is going on here is there is, as Senator McCain suggested, a number drives the mission, not the mission drives the number. At the end of the day, this 3,000 doesn't get any of the essential jobs done. It leads to 3,000 exposed. It leaves the thousands of civilians without the help they need. It leaves the Iraqi military in a lurch. There is no upside to this.

I would end with this thought: Let's get the missions identified and resource them in an adequate way, and I think the country will rally around the President. I cannot think of too many Americans who would want our people to be in harm's way unnecessarily. If you leave one, you have some obligation to the one. Well, if you left one, you would be doing that person a disservice. Leave enough so we can get it right, and that number is far beyond 3,000.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

I would appreciate the Chair letting me know when 4 minutes has expired.

Let us put this debate in context. In 2010, we had a major election in the country. The people who were elected in the House made promises to their constituents: If you send me to Congress, I will try to change the system and deal with the fact our Nation is being run into the ground.

We have more debt than any future generation can ever pay off, with 40 cents of every dollar we spend being borrowed money. If you are born today, you inherit about $48,000 of debt. We are spending more on Social Security payments than we collect in taxes. Medicare is underfunded by $30-something trillion over the next 75 years. When you add up all entitlement programs, we are about $50 trillion short of the promises we have made.

Simply put, the House Republicans who were elected, during their campaigns said: I believe Congress is out of control. We are going to become Greece, and I want to do something about it.

What did you expect when they got here? They would say: Okay, I have been taught the real way the Congress works, and it is all okay. They did something about it. Congratulations. Anytime a person running for office fulfills the promises they made to their constituents, they have done a great service to democracy.

Cut, cap, and balance is the House effort to reduce spending not 10 years from now but this coming year. The problem with all these plans and the very sincere efforts in the past to solve our debt problems-- Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997 between President Clinton and the Republicans--and I was here then when we achieved balance, because we restricted the growth of entitlements such as Medicare, we restricted doctor and hospital payments, and we actually balanced the budget for a year or two, but then we found out how much it was hurting doctors and hospitals. We didn't institute real reform. We began to nickel and dime doctors and hospitals, and guess what. We stopped the program and we spent all the surpluses.

How do you get $14-trillion-plus in debt? Both parties are working together. This has been a bipartisan effort for about 30 years to run the country into the ground. I want a break. I want to have a bipartisan effort to save the country from becoming Greece, and the only way you can do that is to put ideas on the table.

Please, I say to my Democratic colleagues, let this debate go forward. If this is not worth debating, what would be? How do you save the country from becoming a debtor nation to the point the next generation can't inherit the American dream? If you have a better plan than cut, cap, and balance, please show it to us. We are willing to raise the debt limit, but we are not going to do it without changing the reason we got in debt.

The cut part reduces spending in 2012 by $100 billion. That will cause some pain, but it is eminently doable. It is about 3 or 4 percent of the Federal budget. I think most people at home believe they can cut their budget 3 or 4 percent. If they had to do it to save their family, they would. We are talking about saving the country.

The cap is an effort to control spending over 10 years to wipe out the $1.4 trillion deficit. We are going to become Greece because we are going to have 100 percent of debt to GDP in about the next 20 years, and a trillion-plus deficit has to be changed. You can't do it overnight, but you should be able to do it over 10 years.

The centerpiece of the House legislation is the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. What rational person believes that Republicans on this side and Democrats on that side are ever going to find a way to fix our Nation's problems without something new happening?

I thank the Chair.

After 40 years, the evidence is in. The Congress is broken, and unless you change the system fundamentally, we are going to run our Nation into the ground. So I support a balanced budget amendment.

Here is the way it works: You have to get two-thirds in the Senate and the House and three-fourths of the States

have to ratify the balanced budget amendment. Give the people of America a chance to have their say. Let's pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution before we take the country and put it in a situation beyond redemption. The only thing that is ever going to change this body, I am sad to say, is some discipline imposed by the Constitution itself.

I promise my colleagues to work with you where I can. But for the rest of my time in the Senate--and I don't know how long it is going to be--I am going to push a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, because I don't trust the Congress to do the hard work on its own. And when I say that, I mean Republicans too.

Well, I thank the Senator. I will give my thoughts as briefly as I can. My first thought is that we live in incredibly dangerous times--exciting and dangerous. What is the Arab spring about? What are people asking for in Libya? They are asking to replace Qadhafi and form a new government where they will have a say. I do not think that is too much to ask.

All I can say is that America's freedom is best secured when she, America, is assisting others to obtain theirs. And the one thing history tells us, free people settle their differences without resorting to the evils of war. So to those in this body and throughout the country--I know we are broke. We are here today to supposedly talk about the budget. Well, we are not doing anything but talking. We are $14.3 trillion in debt. There are all kinds of ideas between Republicans and Democrats about how to get the country's fiscal house in order. It is July 5. We are here looking at each other doing nothing. But there is another part of the world, as the Senate and the House basically talk about America being in debt, where people are dying, as I speak, trying to change their government for the better.

What should we do? I will tell you what we should do. We should help where we can. Senator McCain has experienced war unlike very few people in this body. He knows when we go to war bad things happen to good people. The idea that he or myself or anybody else relishes trying to go to war or being in war is offensive, quite frankly. He knows better than I, and I have a pretty good understanding of what happens when we go to war.

But here is what happens when we do not go to war sometimes: Bad people are able to do incredible things that we wind up having to confront later, and it costs everybody more to have waited.

So what are we doing in Libya? We are following rather than leading. Now, to Senator McCain's question. NATO's bombing activities are being done without American air power. We spend more money than all NATO nations combined on defense. I know a lot of Americans do not like that. I do not like it either, but it is the way it is. We are the arsenal of democracy.

When America does not fly, wars go on longer, more people get raped, more people get killed. Let me tell you, if Qadhafi survives this is the end of NATO.

If you do not want America to go alone in this dangerous world, count me in. But who are we going to partner with? If the U.N. is seen by the American people as an unreliable group to deal with dictators--and it is--what if NATO is no longer an organization that people throughout the world respect on the side of good, and the evil side of the ledger does not care if NATO gets involved because they do not have the will to do anything about it?

So we should be involved with our NATO partners. Our NATO partners depend on Libya more than we do. They came to Afghanistan not because they were attacked but because we were attacked. They are our friends. They are our allies. They have been with us trying to make sure Afghanistan never goes back into the darkness, a place that attacked us or them again.

So when they need us, I will tell President Obama: Now is not the time to sit on the sidelines. I know we are a war-weary Nation, but there is no upside to Qadhafi staying in power. That is a national security nightmare for this country.

Here is a recent headline: Qadhafi threatens to attack Europe over airstrikes. Colonel Qadhafi has threatened to carry out attacks against homes, offices, families in Europe unless NATO stops its campaign of air strikes against his regime in Libya. He actually means it. Hitler meant it. He means it.

So we should be talking about the debt; we are not. We should be taking a stand against Qadhafi in an effective way. As Senator McCain said, we are leading from behind. I just cannot tell you how upset I am with policies coming from this administration that are sending the signal to our allies that we are not as reliable as we should be, and to our enemies that we do not have the same amount of will to protect our freedom as they do to take it away from us.

If I could try to answer the hostility question. When we are using Predator drones to bring down military targets, that, to me, is an acceptable situation in Libya. I do not want ground troops in Libya. The people in Libya do not want a ground invasion by NATO forces. They want our help. And what do we have to offer better than anybody in the world? Intelligence gathering. These platforms that are gathering information about targets are unique to America.

The target packages that are being put together are being done mostly by Americans, and we are turning these target packages over to NATO countries. Some of the aircraft that are flying--and God bless our allies for taking this risk--are 30 years old. No one has the ability like the American Air Force and naval forces to carry on aerial campaigns.

But some people in this body have a right to have their say like we do. We should be debating this, but the administration's position that a Predator drone attack is not a hostile act is dangerous because in Yemen, the administration, with my full support, is taking the fight to Yemen today. They are using Predator drone attacks against al-Qaida groups in Yemen. We just had special forces involved in killing al- Qaida operatives in Somalia. We have to be on the offensive. We need to be hitting these people over there before they can reorganize and hit us here.

So I support the administration's ability and constitutional right to take the fight to the enemy. But for them to tell the body these are not hostile acts is the ultimate confusion. It is confusing to the enemy; it is confusing to our allies; it is confusing to the American people. I reject this definition being offered by this administration that using Predator drones to attack targets is not a hostile act.

I believe the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. There are two things we can do in this body as a Member of Congress: We can declare war and we can cut off funding when we do not like things the way they are going. We very seldom declare war in this Nation from a congressional point of view for a reason. But we have constantly engaged forces that wish to attack us and our allies without declarations of war. If you do not like what we are doing in Libya, cut off funding. Do not try to micromanage the war through congressional fiat.

So $30 billion is available to the Libyan people. It is money frozen, stolen by Qadhafi. The Turkish Government, the French, the British in some sense have recognized this Transitional National Council. If we would do that, they would have access to the $30 billion.

Senator McCain met with the leadership of this council. I have too. They would gladly pay us back for any assistance we could provide if they could get their hands on the money. Does the Senator agree with that?

If I may, we have our good colleague, a Naval intelligence officer, Senator Kirk from Illinois, and we will certainly yield to him now. But one last thought.

America needs to do two things quickly: We need to get our fiscal house in order. We need to balance our budget and decide among ourselves how important is this national security. To me, it is the No. 1 thing we should do in Congress. If we do not get that right, there is nothing else that is going to matter. There will never be economic prosperity in America if the world is in the hands of evil people who will make it very difficult to travel and trade and do business.

The other thing we need to do, after we balance our budget, is to have a clear vision of who we are and what we believe. I believe we are destined to lead the free world. I do not consider it a burden. I consider it the birthright of all Americans, not only to maintain our freedom but to help others secure theirs.

A word of warning: The day that America rejects that leadership role is a day we will eventually lose our freedom and more damage will be done to this country if we disengage than if we do engage.

So with that, I would like to recognize Senator Kirk from Illinois.

I think our American military will be studying the Petraeus tactics and strategy that he implemented in Iraq and Afghanistan for generations to come. In January of 2007 when the surge was announced, I had had the pleasure of being over in Iraq in April, but I remember a letter issued by General Petraeus to all those under his command and it was basically entitled ``Hard is not Hopeless.'' He explained in great detail in the letter how we would move forward as a nation, that it would be difficult, it would be hard, but not hopeless. I have seen the inspiration he provides to our men and women in uniform, and I cannot tell you how much this country owes General Petraeus and his family. He has been deployed almost continuously since 2001, but what he was able to accomplish in Iraq with the help of those under his command, he will be the first to say, they deserve the credit.

And now Afghanistan. He came into Afghanistan under very difficult circumstances, losing a commander in the field. The progress in the last year has been stunning. The Taliban in the south has been knocked down hard. There is a 90,000 increase in the Afghan national security forces. We have a new training program to train Afghan security forces, and I think it will pay great dividends.

To the President, you have chosen wisely in picking David Petraeus to be the Director of the CIA.

I am confident Director Petraeus will do as good a job for the country as General Petraeus, and that is saying a lot. Following Leon Panetta, who did a great job, we are in good hands as a nation. I don't believe any single person understands the threats America faces better than General Petraeus. At the CIA he will have a chance to take the fight to the enemy in a different way. We will not have available forever 100,000 troops to be used in theaters of battle.

We are going to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope we do it smartly based on conditions. But this fight is morphing into other countries, Yemen, Somalia, the Horn of Africa, and the Nation is playing a more crucial role in our Nation's defense than at any time in the history of the CIA. We will be blessed to have

David Petraeus to be Director of the CIA. He understands the threats. I think he will be able to marshal the resources of the CIA to keep the enemies on their heels and to reinforce to our allies that we are a reliable partner and to our enemies there is no place you can hide. There is no passage of time that will keep you safe from American justice.

I hope the Congress--I know Senator Chambliss will, the Senate in particular--will listen to General Petraeus, who will soon be Director Petraeus, about how to make sure the CIA is equipped and funded to take on the enemy. In this war on terror, we are fighting an idea. There is no capital to conquer, there is no air force to down, there is no navy to sink. We are battling an idea. And the way we ultimately become safe is to empower those who have the will to fight the terrorists in their backyard to provide them with the capacity to let the terrorists organizations know we will follow you to the gates of hell, that we will never relent. The CIA and the brave men and women who serve in that organization are becoming the tip of the spear in this battle. What happened in Somalia yesterday, what is going to happen in the future in Yemen and Somalia is a direct result of good intelligence and national will.

To Senator McCain and those who have gotten to know General Petraeus, I can assure you that President Obama chose wisely. This is the perfect job for David Petraeus to take up for the Nation. He has the understanding of the threats we face and the CIA is the platform we will be using against the enemy more effectively than any other platform I know.

With that, I look forward to casting my vote for Director of the CIA David Petraeus, and I hope everybody in this body will provide a vote of confidence to General Petraeus. He has earned this. America is in good hands with David Petraeus being the CIA Director.

I yield. I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, there is a lot going on in this world. We have a mountain of debt and wars and rumors of wars, and people are nervous throughout the country. But I thought I would take a few minutes of the time of the Senate to acknowledge something that is a very big deal where I come from.

The University of South Carolina has won back-to-back College World Series. They defeated the Florida Gators last night 5 to 2. Florida played a great series, and they left a lot of men on base. I am sure they are going to look at the tape and talk about next year how to get some runs in.

But Coach Tanner and the Gamecock team repeated. They were only the sixth team in NCAA history to do this, to win back-to-back titles. It was very rewarding and poetic.

The University of South Carolina won the last series in Rosenblatt Stadium. This was the first series to be held in the TD Ameritrade Park in Omaha, NE, in front of 26,000 people. They set a record for the NCAA with 16 consecutive post-season wins, 11 consecutive wins in the College World Series, dating back to the 2010 season. The pitching staff had a 1.31 ERA. The bullpen was 6-0. Great hitting. Great coaching. More than anything else, big hearts.

So to the Gamecock nation, congratulations on back-to-back titles. You make us all proud. And if you are watching Gamecock baseball, and you have a bad heart, you need to turn the channel because they win in the most dramatic fashion. They never give up. They believe in themselves.

Michael Roth, the winning pitcher of the last game, said: We don't have the most talented people at every position. But we play together with heart. We believe in each other.

Maybe the country could learn something from Gamecock baseball. If we all work together for a common purpose and put our differences aside, maybe we could achieve greatness too.

So congratulations to Coach Tanner for back-to-back titles. We are very proud of your team. Not only did you win two titles, you did it with style, grace, and dignity. You won with honor. I look forward to meeting the team when they come up to the White House. And I know Columbia is rocking tonight.

Congratulations to the Gamecocks. You won in fine style, and we are all proud of you.

With that, I yield the floor.

I did. And if I could respond to my colleague about his statement on the floor, I would like to associate myself with it. I thought it was a very well articulated statement about the times in which we live.

For about 18 months, we have had additional military capacity that was never known to Afghanistan, all because of President Obama's decision to send 33,000 troops at General Petraeus' request. Now, the request was for 40,000, but at the time, I said: I do appreciate President Obama giving the commander the resources that could do the job, but you have to do it differently.

General Keene is the architect of counterinsurgency. He is a mentor of General Petraeus. He and General Petraeus and others came up with the strategy that succeeded in Iraq. Here is what has happened, from my point of view.

I go about every 3 months. About 2 years ago, I was very afraid we were going to lose.

How could the Taliban come back with about 100,000 NATO forces in Afghanistan? The truth was that the rules of engagement for NATO really were law enforcement rules. The NATO forces could not engage the enemy in an effective way.

We were looking at this from the eyes of a law enforcement activity, and the number of American forces was about 30,000. That wasn't enough to help build the Afghan Army, train and equip the Afghan Army, control the population, provide safety, and give governance a chance to flourish through better security. That is why we needed more troops.

To all the commanders before General Petraeus, you were holding Afghanistan together, in many ways with duct tape.

I believe Iraq is a pivotal moment in the war on terror, but it is a fair observation to make that because of the war in Iraq, resources were taken away from Afghanistan. The truth is that even though we have been there almost 10 years, we really have only been there with the capacity to bring about change for the last 18 months.

So what has happened in the last 18 months? The 30,000 surge forces were sent to the southern part of Afghanistan. This really is a Pashtun civil war. It is a fight between the Taliban, a radical element of the Pashtun community, and a majority of Pashtuns and other Afghans who want a different way.

Kandahar is in the south. It is the spiritual home of Mullah Omar. That is the place he lived, and there is an American operating base within a mile of his compound. You can get up on the roof of a prison there, and you can see Mullah Omar's compound. So the argument is, if we can win in the south, we can win anywhere. So we took 30,000 troops into the southern part of Afghanistan, and we broke the enemy's back. We have allowed the Afghan Army and security forces to develop.

In September 2009, there were 800 people a month joining the Afghan Army and 2,000 a month leaving. I am not very good at math, but that is not a way to build an army. From December 2009 to the present, we have been recruiting 6,000 a month in the army, 3,000 in the police. What happened? Better pay and a sense that we were going to win. So in 17 months, we have built up the Afghan security forces by 90,000. We will have 305,000 by the end of this year.

What is the problem with the President's drawdown of forces? Why can't you do it with the numbers we have? Counterinsurgency is a very labor-intensive operation. Its goal is to provide population security and focus on training by fighting with a unit. Instead of training them during the day and hoping they do well at night, you literally go out and live with the police and the army. It is a very labor-intensive activity, but it is the best way to provide training and build capacity.

Here is the problem. The surge forces under President Obama's withdrawal plan are now going to compromise next summer. Drawing 10,000 down this year is going to make it hard to finish out the fighting season we are engaged in now.

But here is General Allen's dilemma. Because we had 30, not 40, we couldn't go to RC-East, where the Haqqani Network exists, and fight the Taliban in the south at the same time. So we took our full force of the surge and put it against the Taliban in the south. We broke their back. We have been holding RC-East, and the game plan was to take those surge forces out of the south and go to RC-East next summer and deliver a decisive blow to the Haqqani Network. That way, the two forces undermining Afghanistan would be put at bay.

Because of the President's decision and the rejection of General Petraeus' advice, come next summer the surge forces will be all gone by September, and General Allen is in a box. How does he hang on to the security gains in RC-South? Because the enemy's will has been broken, they have been put on their knees, but they are not yet defeated because they can go across the border to Pakistan. So next summer, the surge forces we were going to have available for General Allen are going to be gone, and RC-East cannot be engaged in the same fashion as RC-South.

What does that all matter? That means one of the enemies of the Afghan people is getting a reprieve and the ability to develop security forces all over the country so that when we leave, they can fight and win has been compromised. Counterinsurgency requires math. You need a certain amount of soldiers against the enemy.

I was asked last night: There are only 50 al-Qaida. Why do you need so many troops? One Navy SEAL could defeat 50 al-Qaida.

Those who suggest that simplistic formula don't understand what we are trying to do. We are trying to take a country that has been beaten down and involved in civil war for 30 years and provide better governance through better security.

The way you beat the Taliban is you go and take them on with an overwhelming show of force. You inspire the local population to come your way and get off the sidelines because they don't want the Taliban to win, but they are afraid that at the end of the day we are going to leave and the Taliban will take over. Because of this surge, the people in the south jumped our way. And this is what is so heartbreaking. We are on the verge of being able in two summers to deliver decisive blows to two enemies of ours and the Afghan people--the radical element of the Taliban and the Haqqani Network in the east. But because of this adjustment in strategy, I think we now have lost capability, and General Allen is going to have a much more difficult job.

Things to watch.

That is a very good question. Who are these people and what makes them tick? Why would people who could leave by just not reenlisting keep going back to Iraq and Afghanistan? My view of our forces is that they see the face of the enemy, they believe they have a strategy that is working, and they don't want their kids to go back. So when you use the troops as a reason to shortcut this war, I don't think you are really listening to what they say and what they do. If they were exhausted and hopeless, they would change careers.

I have never seen Afghanistan change as much as I have in the last year, and my fear is that the successes we have achieved are going to be compromised for no good reason. Both of us believe that you could, at the end of 2012, if you do this right, remove all of the surge forces. But what we have been trying to argue to the President and anyone else who will listen is that this fighting season and the next fighting season are the best chance we will have in our lifetime to bring about permanent, sustainable change. And I think General Petraeus has been trying to tell the country and the President: Give General Allen the ability to take the fight to the east like we did to the south.

From the troops' point of view, the reason they go to Afghanistan and Iraq over and over is they understand this enemy better than you and I. They see what the enemy is capable of doing. They saw it in Anbar, where children were killed in front of their parents by al-Qaida. They see what happens when the Taliban hangs a 9-year-old boy because they believe he is providing information to the coalition forces.

I think our troops understand the danger America faces, to the point that they are willing to leave their families time and time again to protect all of us back here at home.

If you do not believe Afghanistan matters, then I think you are going to be in for a rude awakening. If it goes bad in Afghanistan, if the Taliban can survive and wait us out and they begin to reemerge, a lot of people who helped us, I say to Senator McCain, are going to get killed. And when America goes off to some future conflict to help the oppressed, we are going to be seen as an unreliable ally and our enemies are going to be stronger.

One final thought. This is a consequential week. The negotiations dealing with our national debt have broken down. My colleagues in the House, whom I respect, are about to vote to cut off funding, which will send a signal to Muammar Qadafi that I think is unhealthy. At the end of the day, the decisions we make here in Congress are going to affect our Nation long after you and I leave this body. Qadafi is on the ropes. NATO has limited capacity, but if the American Congress tells Qadafi we are out of the fight, I am afraid that is going to give him a sense of hope he does not have today.

What does it matter if he stays? I think logically you can expect, if he outlasts NATO, the Arab spring is over. We can't go into Syria, but he will take it out on his people. I think it will affect the price of oil. That will be the end of NATO, because with NATO taking on Qadafi and losing, it is going to be very hard for that organization to go off to another war and be taken seriously.

I hope we can survive this week, that cooler heads will prevail. I am going to tell Mike Mullen, when you come to get confirmed for this job, please let us know if you are having to make hard decisions because of a lack of resources. Give the President that information and let Congress know so we can adjust the strategy. I hope the President is right and that we are both wrong. But General Keene and General Petreaus have come up with a strategy that I think, given time and patience, will work. This new strategy is something that is untested, that is unnecessarily risky.

The way to keep America safe, Ronald Reagan said, the way to prevent a war--he said: When people who love freedom are strong, not weak, that is the best way to prevent war.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Leon Panetta for Secretary of Defense. The President has chosen wisely. He has a terrific national security team in place. General Petraeus has become the CIA Director. Mr. Donilon has done a great job as National Security Adviser. In Leon Panetta, the President could not have chosen better. I am pleased with Ambassador Crocker, Ambassador Eikenberry, and General Petraeus did a heck of a job in Afghanistan. Ambassador Crocker will be the best we have to offer on that side for the military-civilian partnership in Afghanistan.

Leon Panetta heading up the Department of Defense is a home-run choice. I have known Leon for quite a while. I want to let the country know I think the President made a very wise decision. Tomorrow night, he is supposed to tell us about Afghanistan.

Yes.

Mr. President, that shows you how bipartisan it is going to be--Graham and Schumer. That shows you the depth and breadth of Leon Panetta--the way people view him here.

One of the first decisions he will have to make is what to tell the President about Afghanistan. I know we are war weary and have been there for 10 years. We didn't just throw a dart at the map when we decided to go there. That is the place the Taliban was controlling, they invited al-Qaida to be their honored guests, and bin Laden had a welcome home in Afghanistan. The rest is history.

President Bush understood that the Taliban was a force for evil. They allowed bin Laden to come to Afghanistan and plan the 9/11 attacks. They had a choice to make, and they chose poorly. We went in there to take the Taliban down.

We have a war in Iraq--and we can debate whether we should have done that. One of the reasons we are still not where we would like to be 10 years later is because a lot of the resources we had in Afghanistan went to Iraq. Now we finally got it right.

For the last 17 months, we have had enough troops in Afghanistan to make a difference. To President Obama, that was a hard decision for you to make--to add 30,000 additional troops at a time when most people said: Why are we still there? Can't we come home? But the President chose wisely, and 2014 is the transition goal--to transition to Afghan control. I think we are well on track.

Tomorrow night, the President will tell us about withdrawing troops. I believe we can, not because we are tired but because of the success on the ground. Let me point out some successes that would allow the President to make a reasoned judgment to withdraw troops. The one thing I urge the President to do is never lose sight of why we went there and our national security goals in Afghanistan. We will all be judged by what we leave behind. We want to leave behind the ability of the Afghan people to say no to the Taliban and reject extremism. They have the will, but they don't have the capacity yet. But they are getting there. Anytime you have the desire of the people who are oppressed by the Taliban and al-Qaida and you can help them help themselves, that makes it all safer.

Here is what happened since the President sent surge forces in. In November of 2009, there were two nations and 30 NATO trainers--two nations helping train the Afghan security forces from NATO. They had a combined 30 people. You could put them all in a bus. One thing the President did when he surged American forces in was that he insisted NATO step up their game. Here we are today, and we have 1,300 NATO trainers in Afghanistan with 32 countries providing assistance. We have 49 different countries helping in some form of training.

In the last 17 months, we have added 90,000 Afghan Army and police forces. So there has been a surge, far beyond the American coalition surge, in Afghan forces. How did that happen? We have better training. In September of 2009, 800 people were joining the Afghan Army per month. They were losing 2,000 a month. That was a terrible trend. In December of 2009, because of this new construct we came up with, we have been averaging 6,000 army recruits a month and 3,000 for the police. Today, we have 160,000 in the Afghan National Army and 126,000 in the Afghan National Police. By the end of the year, we will have 305,000 army and police under arms in Afghanistan. And the reason that has happened is because we have changed the way we train the Afghan security forces.

So I hope the President, listening to Leon Panetta, Secretary Gates, and Secretary Petraeus, will tell the American people we can start bringing forces home beginning this summer because we have been successful, and we are not going to do anything to undermine that success because it has come at such a heavy price.

In reality, ladies and gentlemen, we have been in Afghanistan with the right configuration for about 18 months. The army retention rates today in the Afghan Army are 69 percent--almost doubled. The literacy rate among the Afghan Army and police force is twice that of the national population because we have focused on literacy. It is hard to be a policeman or army officer if you can't read or write. We are helping a people who have been dirt poor, who have been at war for 30 years, and who have been treated very poorly by everybody in the world. At the end of the day, it is in our national security interest to make sure the country where the Taliban took over and allowed bin Laden to come in as an honored guest never goes back into the hands of an extremist.

I am confident Leon Panetta has the wisdom and background, as the CIA Director, as a former Member of Congress, and as a successful businessperson, to lead the Pentagon at the most challenging time since World War II.

He is taking over from Bob Gates. There is not enough we can say or do for Secretary Gates to thank him. He has had the job for 5 years. When he came on board, Iraq was a hopeless, lost cause in the minds of many, and he and General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, and many others--mainly our troops and coalition forces--took an Iraq that was on the verge of an abyss and we are now on the verge of a representative government that can defend itself and be an ally of the United States. Having Saddam Hussein replaced by a representative government in Iraq aligned with us is priceless. If we could as a nation take the place from which we were once attacked and turn it over to people who want to go a different way than the Taliban, and they have the ability to fight back and say no, all of us will be safer.

I congratulate the President on picking Leon Panetta to be Secretary of Defense. I know he has had a lot of hard decisions in the war on terror, and one of the biggest decisions he will make is coming up maybe tomorrow night. I want to work with him, Republicans and Democrats together, in making sure our Nation is never attacked again from Afghanistan. That is possible. We are on the verge of getting that right.

As we draw down troops, I ask the President to please tell those who are left behind still fighting in Afghanistan that he hasn't lost sight of the prize. The prize is not just bringing our troops home, the prize is to make sure their children never have to go back and fight in the future. That is the goal--to withdraw from Afghanistan in a way that we are safer and that our national security is enhanced. We are on the verge of achieving that goal.

What Secretary Panetta and others are going to be challenged with as we go forward in the 21st century is going to be substantial. The enemy is still alive, even though not well. We have punished the enemy--al- Qaida and other extremist groups--but they will not give up easily. At the end of the day, the goal is for our country to be safe, and it will take more than killing bin Laden to do that. Killing bin Laden was a form of justice long overdue, and it did make us safer, but the ultimate security in this world lies not with our ability to kill individuals but with our ability to help those who need to fight in their own backyard and protect

themselves from terrorism. That really is security that is sustainable.

If we can leave Afghanistan in 2014 in a fashion that they have the capacity to marry up with their will to say no to the Taliban and turn their country around toward the light and not the darkness, then I say without any doubt that our country did them right. If we cut this operation short because we are tired and weary, we will pay a price. Our values are so much better than the enemy's. They have patience and bad ideas. We have a lot of good ideas for the future of mankind. The question is, Do we have the patience to make sure those ideas can flourish?

This is a long, hard war, fought by a few. We are on the verge of success. I could not think of a better person to lead us to a complete success, an enduring success, than Leon Panetta. So I look forward, in a bipartisan fashion, to voting for I think one of the best choices the President could have made as Secretary of Defense.

To Bob Gates, I would say: Whatever you do in retirement, wherever you go, you have my respect, my admiration, and on behalf of the American people you will go down in history as one of the steadiest hands America could have ever had during challenging times.

With that, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

This is the time to have some good bipartisanship.

Senator Levin, is it not true--I have to ask you a question--that you have been saying as long as I can remember that the surge that really needs to occur is on the Afghan side?

You have focused like a laser in the last couple of years on training capacity. Not only are we producing 90,000 additional Afghan Army and police forces, 97 percent of them now can pass Western shooting standards. Two years ago, that number was less than a third. Of the NCOs--noncommissioned officers--graduating from the schools in Afghanistan, there is about an 80-percent literacy rate. Two years ago, it was less than 50 percent.

So what I wish to acknowledge is that Senator Levin has been focusing on what I think is the ticket home with honor and security: building up an Afghan army and police force that can fight the fight without 100,000 Americans. We are well on the way. If we had not changed our training program--which the Senator has been focused on for a very long time--we would not have had this success. And General Caldwell is one of the unsung heroes of this war.

But I couldn't agree more with my colleague from Michigan. The reason we can bring American troops home is because there are more Afghans to do the fighting. And the Senator mentioned that during the surge in Helmand, it was a 10-to-1 ratio. For every Afghan, there were 10 American forces. It is almost 50-50 today, with a climb to where it will be Afghans in the lead.

The final thought is that among the trainers themselves, the goal by 2013 is to replace NATO trainers with Afghan trainers, and we are well on our way to having a majority of the training done by Afghans themselves. So if we can get the fighting ratios to 1-to-1 this year and improve on that by 2014, we will be able to turn the country over to the Afghan security forces. And I think we have a good plan. Let's just stick with it.

If the Senator will yield for one final thought, the two big impediments to our success in Afghanistan are Pakistan and poor governance. The reason the Taliban came back is because the governance in Afghanistan was poor, not well-accepted by the people, and lack of security. We now have better security, and I do see signs of better governance. And we have to fix the Pakistan side of the equation. On the Afghan side of the border, we are doing about everything we can do to build up the Afghan people. We will deal with Pakistan and we will deal with better governance, but none of that is possible without better security. Now we have a security environment that I think will lead to better governance. But don't lose sight of the prize, and that is to leave the country in a sustainable manner.

I look forward to working with Senator Levin to push the Afghan Government to do their part and also to engage Pakistan and say: What you are doing in Pakistan is unacceptable. Stop the double-dealing. Get involved.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from South Carolina, who has been terrific in trying to bring reason to this issue. Senator DeMint has been a very strong voice for free enterprise, and that is really what this is all about.

To Senator Alexander from Tennessee, thank you for listening to what is going on in South Carolina and understanding this is not just about our State, it is about the Nation as a whole.

The Right to Work Protection Act is a very solid piece of legislation that is going to serve the country as a whole. When a State chooses to be a right-to-work State, what does that mean? That means no one can be forced to join a union. The union can ask for your vote. If you say no, that is your decision to make, and if the group says yes, you do not have to join. In a lot of States, that is not true. If 51 percent of the workforce or 60 percent of the workforce says: We are going to go union, everybody else is drafted whether they want to be or not.

So the concept of right to work is really at stake here, and I do appreciate this legislation because it would preserve the ability of the State to go down that road without suffering at the Federal level. It would prohibit Federal Government contracts, Federal Government action from punishing a State that chose to adopt right-to-work laws. That is why Senator Alexander's legislation is so important. We are not making anyone become a right-to-work State. We are saying: If you choose to do that, your Federal Government in the NLRB and other organizations of the Federal Government cannot use that against you. We are protecting that status. I think that is the balanced approach to this dilemma we face.

Now, what is this dilemma?

Boeing is one of the great companies in the world. They have a history of producing terrific airplanes. They have been located in Washington for decades. As a South Carolinian who is very happy Boeing has come to South Carolina, I want to acknowledge the Washington workforce as one of the best in the world. We hope to build great airplanes in South Carolina, but the first thing I want to do is acknowledge that my complaint or concern is not with the people of Washington, not with the workforce in Washington, it is with the actions of the NLRB and this complaint filed by the machinists union. So I hope to be in partnership with my colleagues from the State of Washington in the Senate and on the House side to pursue good policies that not only will be good for Boeing but for the country as a whole.

South Carolina is going to enjoy the status of being a teammate with the people of Washington when it comes to trying to help Boeing and manufacturing in general. But what happened is that in October of 2009, Boeing decided to create a second assembly plant in South Carolina. This is a new assembly plant because the orders for the 787 were so large, it necessitated building a second line. Boeing, under the contract with the machinists union, reserved in that contract the right to locate new business wherever they thought it would be best for Boeing. They negotiated with the people in Seattle about producing the second line in Seattle, and they went all over the country looking for other locations to create a second line.

They came to South Carolina, and I can assure you, after a lot of negotiations, the reason they chose South Carolina was because it was the best business deal for Boeing. They negotiated in Washington. They negotiated everywhere in the country, really, where they thought they could do good business, and South Carolina won out. And there is criticism back home that the package we gave Boeing was too generous. So I can assure you this was a legitimate business deal, and the idea that moving to South Carolina somehow was retaliation that violated the National Labor Relations Act section 883 is legally absurd. Under that act, a company cannot retaliate against a group of employees or a location that decides to unionize.

You would have to prove in a retaliation complaint that the people suffered. Well, in this case, not one person in Pugent Sound or in the State of Washington lost their job. Because of the additional business being generated in South Carolina, 2,000 people have been hired in the State of Washington. Not one benefit was cut from the workforce in Washington. Nobody's pay was cut. Nobody's benefits were reduced because they moved to South Carolina. So this complaint is just frivolous. It is motivated by all the wrong reasons.

Let's just for a moment assume that it is granted and this is the new business model. It would mean basically that if you decide to do work in a union plant, you are locked into that location forever; you could never move. That is crazy. That is not what the law is all about. The law prevents retaliation, and that is a specific concept in the law, and none of the factors that

would lead to that conclusion exist in this case. There is new work. No one lost a job. This is a new line of business. And we are arguing about the right of a company to be able to make a business decision when it comes to new production. That is why this complaint, if it ever gets to Federal court, will fail. It is sad that Boeing may have to spend millions of dollars defending itself against what I think is a very frivolous complaint.

But let me tell my colleagues a little bit about this if they are wondering about it. Here is something I want to put on the table for you to consider. One of the members of the Boeing board at the time they chose to come to South Carolina--after a lot of negotiations in different places, including Washington and South Carolina--one of the board members who approved the second assembly line in South Carolina was Bill Daley, the Chief of Staff of the President of the United States. At the time, he was not Chief of Staff, he was a member of the Boeing board, and they voted unanimously to create a second assembly plant in the State of South Carolina. I would argue that Mr. Daley, when he cast that vote, understood it was best for Boeing to make this decision to locate new business, and he did not believe he was violating the law or retaliating against unions. One thing you can say about the Daley family, it is not in their DNA to retaliate against unions. This was in 2009.

In March 2010, the machinists union filed its complaint with the NLRB. Now, the general counsel, the person holding that title a few weeks ago, submitted the complaint to the board. But the story is even more interesting. In March of 2010, the complaint was filed by the machinists union. The vote to come to South Carolina was in October 2009. In January of 2011, Mr. Daley was chosen to be President Obama's Chief of Staff--a decision I supported and thought was a good decision for the administration and the country as a whole because Mr. Daley is a Democrat, but he is a very well respected member of the business community, someone who has a lot of skill and talent, and the President chose wisely. I would assume that in the vetting process they looked at Mr. Daley's record of involvement in business and other matters. I am assuming the vetting team knew the complaint had been filed by the machinists union in March of 2010 and that Mr. Daley voted along with the rest of the members of the board to come to South Carolina. And they must have concluded that this complaint was frivolous. I assume that because if they did not know about the complaint, that was one of the worst vetting jobs in the history of the world. And if they thought he did engage in illegal activity, it made no sense to hire him.

So, to my colleagues, I want you to consider the fact that Mr. Daley, the current Chief of Staff, voted to come to South Carolina. After he voted--a year and a half later--he was chosen to be the Chief of Staff of the President of the United States. The Boeing CEO, Jim McNerney, was chosen by President Obama to lead his Export Council to create jobs for Americans by looking at export opportunities. I would argue that President Obama would not have chosen Mr. McNerney if he thought he led an effort to retaliate against Washington unions.

All I can say is this complaint is frivolous. It is taking time and money away from creating jobs in South Carolina and Washington. And it has national implications. To Senator Alexander, you have found the right way for the Congress to address this issue. We are not forcing anybody to be a member of a union. We are just saying, if a State such as South Carolina or Tennessee chooses to be a right-to-work State, that cannot be held against them. This legislation would say to the country and the business community as a whole: When you look at where to locate, you can consider a right-to-work State without violating the law. That is an important concept.

I can assure you, Boeing came to South Carolina because it was the best business deal. They had a lot of choices. They chose South Carolina not to retaliate but to create a second line. And here is the logic of it: Would you put everything you own in one location in today's world? So the idea that they expanded into the second plant in a different State, in a different location, makes perfect sense. The fact that South Carolina is a low-cost right-to-work State I am sure they considered. But under the law, no one in Washington lost one benefit they had. No one in Washington lost a job they already had with Boeing. The goal of this decision by Boeing is to grow their company. If we do well in South Carolina, Boeing does well in Washington.

This complaint is dangerous. This complaint is a dangerous road to go down. This complaint is politics at its worst. The law is designed to protect us, and it is being abused, in my view. Politics is about 50 plus 1. The law is something that should protect us all.

This complaint filed by the general counsel at the NLRB sets a dangerous precedent, and the Congress should speak. The administration should speak out and say this is frivolous; they are an independent agency; nobody can tell them what to do. But we have an independent duty to speak out in a constructive way.

Senator Alexander's legislation is the appropriate way to address this issue, and I wish to thank him on behalf of the people of South Carolina and the country as a whole, and I look forward to working with him to have this passed.

To my colleagues on the other side, what is going on in this complaint is dangerous for us all and not just South Carolina.

With that, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my good friend, the majority leader.

Mr. President, a lot of Members now understand the problem we have with the port of Charleston in 2011. There is no money in the President's budget to do a scoping study. Under the new rules concerning earmarking, it has been very difficult to find a way forward. With the help of the majority leader and his staff and the people on Appropriations--the staffs of Senators Feinstein and Lamar Alexander--we came up with

language that would allow 12 different ports to have studies completed in fiscal year 2011, if the Corps chose to engage in those studies. It was not a requirement, and it had no sums required in terms of what the Corps had to spend. It was purely discretionary. Unfortunately, our House colleagues did not accept that language.

My problem is that in fiscal year 2011, there is no mechanism as of yet to allow a scoping study to be done for the potential deepening of the Charleston harbor to accept supercargo ships coming through the Panama Canal in 2014. This harbor, along with others, has to be deepened to accept these new ships. The amount of money is $40,000 on the Federal side to be matched by the State. People ask me: Why can't you come up with the money? Boeing, BMW, Michelin, the State of South Carolina?

I would do the $40,000, but I can't. You cannot have a private entity take over a Federal Government responsibility. So this is one of those situations that is a catch-22. It is an anomaly in the law. The Vice President's office and Congressman Clyburn, a lot of us, Congressman Scott, have been working diligently, with the assistance of the majority leader, to find a pathway forward within the current system. We are very close to finding a way to get this study done because it was a previously authorized program under current law.

I have put a hold on everything I could put a hold on.

Now I believe we are making progress. The majority leader has some needs, and I want to let him know I am willing to work with him and others to end the Senate well before we go out on Easter break. I thank him for the help he has given me to take care of a problem that no one could have anticipated. But it is a real problem for the people of South Carolina. I wish to let him know I appreciate the effort.

I thank the majority leader very much. It is appreciated on behalf of all of us in South Carolina. And I look forward to finding a solution for the country as a whole.

Mr. President, Le Grand Concours French competition consists of oral and written portions and is given by the American Association of Teachers of French to over 100,000 students learning French in all 50 States and abroad.

The MathFest was created in 2001 to provide an extended math initiative that would motivate students, parents, and teachers to raise the standards and expectations in math. This year the South Carolina MathFest was held in Columbia, and 4,000 math students from around the State participated in the competition.

I would like to take a moment to recognize and honor Cailley Factor of Charleston County for winning first place in the second division at the State MathFest competition and for being named a national champion of Le Grand Concours 2010 French competition. Additionally, I would like to recognize Memorable ``Mem'' Factor of Charleston County for winning first place in the first grade division at the State MathFest competition and for being named a national champion of Le Grand Concours 2010 French competition. This is the first time in the history of the competition that siblings have been named winners in the same year.

The achievements of both Cailley and Memorable Factor serve as an example which all students should strive towards. I applaud them both in their accomplishments and look forward to their future success.

Yes. If I may, Mr. President.

No. 1, Senator Barrasso, who is an orthopedic surgeon, has been a great addition to the Republican conference and to the Senate as a whole. He is a doctor and has practiced medicine longer than he has been in politics, I am sure, and he sees this problem from the physician's point of view, from the patient's point of view. And our Presiding Officer was recently a Governor.

Here is what my Governor is telling me: that Medicaid is a program that needs to be reformed, not expanded the way we are doing it. The second largest expense to the State budget in South Carolina is Medicaid matching money.

For those who are home who may be watching, Medicaid is a program for low-income Americans. It is a Federal program and a State program, but it is a Federal Government mandate that if you reach a certain income level, you are eligible for Medicaid services to be administered by the States. But, quite frankly, the flexibility the States have is very limited, and this bill, the Obama health care bill, expands Medicaid eligibility to the point that 29 percent of the people in South Carolina would be Medicaid eligible.

Our State has an $850 million shortfall in our budget. I think Wyoming is in pretty good shape, but I think we are probably closer to the average State. We have had a dramatic decrease in revenues, and the cost of complying with the Medicaid expansion in this bill would be $1 billion to a State that cannot afford it. I am sure West Virginia is very similar.

So here is my commitment to the body. I would like to give the States an opportunity to speak as to whether they want the individual mandate, the Medicaid expansion, and employer mandate that I think adds a lot of cost to businesses that will decrease job opportunities at a time when South Carolina needs every job it can get.

But one thing we could do by passing this legislation is get this debate out of Washington, where everybody has kind of dug in their heels, and listen to the people. That is the one thing we have not been able to do.

This bill passed under the cover of darkness on Christmas Eve in a process that is not reflective of the hope and change we all would like to have. It was the worst of Washington. It is not as if the Republican Party has never, behind closed doors, passed bills on a party line. But we are all trying to break that formula. And this bill passed on a party-line vote on Christmas Eve. To get the 60th vote, quite frankly, was unseemly.

So what I am hearing from my Governor is, please give me some relief from a Medicaid Program that is drowning my State.

So after this opportunity comes to take the debate to the State level, I would like to join with Senator Barrasso and the Presiding Officer and anyone else in this body who wants to come up with a way to fix Medicaid before it bankrupts all the States.

So this opt-out approach I think would make the debate more meaningful. It is not just about what people in Washington think; it is about what America wants and what Americans think. The best way to get their opinion is to allow them to speak at the State level.

So if my colleagues on the other side believe this is a great bill, then give other people a chance to validate what you think. We may be wrong. Senator Barrasso and I may be wrong. We may be hearing criticism from this bill that is very limited and unique to Wyoming and South Carolina. I don't think so, but we will never know if we don't give people the chance to speak.

That is what this bill does. It allows States, if they choose, to opt out of the individual mandate and the employer mandate of Medicaid expansion.

What is my colleague from Wyoming hearing about the effect of this bill on the State of Wyoming, and where do you think we should go as a nation?

Mr. President, if I could interrupt and ask the Senator from Wyoming about waivers that have been given. Can the Senator tell us a little bit about the waivers that have been granted? Aren't we basically allowing a State to request a waiver by our bill?

Mr. President, I ask the Senator, what percentage of the waivers involve union plans?

Mr. President, along that line, if I could pose a question to my colleague: How many States have joined the lawsuit saying the individual mandate is unconstitutional, if the Senator knows that number? The Senator just indicated how many States have passed State laws saying we shouldn't be required to comply with individual mandates.

How many States have joined the lawsuit?

If I may, I think the Senator is going to find this case going to the Supreme Court in a year or two--the sooner the better, as far as I am concerned. I don't know how the Court will rule, but I can understand why attorneys general would be arguing that requiring someone to do something to create activity is probably a real stretch of the commerce clause. Where does it end? There are two sides to that legal coin.

My point is, I doubt if the attorneys general of these States, who are mostly elected--or I am sure all of them are elected--would be bringing a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality if they believed their constituents were really for the bill. Does that make sense to my colleague, that 26 attorneys general would be suing the Federal Government in court if they believed their own citizens felt as though this were the right way to go?

Mr. President, if I could make this point to my colleague: No judge is going to ask the average person what they think, nor should they. This is a legal question. I don't know how it is going to come out. I think it is probably 50-50.

What we are doing differently, I say to my friend from Wyoming, is we are not saying we need to pass it all from Washington or repeal it all from Washington. We are saying: Allow people to comment on the product that was created on a party-line vote on Christmas Eve, in an unseemly fashion, by allowing people at the State level, through their elected representative, to have a say. That is different than a court challenge. That is different than a Washington debate. Quite frankly, if we are going to turn one-fifth of the economy upside down, I think it would be very helpful to this country to involve our fellow citizens.

This will be a constitutional academic decision made on the law. What we are trying to do, I say to my good friend from Wyoming, is to take the debate on health care to the State level so people can speak up before we lock the country into a plan that I think is going to ruin the viability of the States' budgets by expanding Medicaid to 150 percent above poverty. Is that not the purpose, to give people the chance to speak as they have never had to this point?

One final question, and I do appreciate the Chair's indulgence. The whole idea of the status quo being acceptable is not what we are talking about. None of us believes the current health care situation is sustainable. Medicare and Medicaid need to be reformed, but so do private health care cost increases. There are monopolies out there by insurance companies. To be able to buy across State lines makes a lot of sense to me.

Briefly, if my colleague could, what does he see--I want to repeal the bill, not just to maintain the status quo, but to replace it with a bipartisan product that does improve quality and lowers costs. Is that the Senator's position, and how can we do that?

On that note, I would say to the Presiding Officer and to my friend from Wyoming, there seems to be a lot of ways to lower costs. The status quo is not acceptable. The solution we have chosen in a very partisan way I think is going to drive up the budget deficit and eventually lead to more people being in government-run health care at a time when the government is broke and is, quite frankly, going to take the State budget problems and make them unsustainable just by expanding Medicaid.

Our bill is pretty simple. If you think this is a very good idea, let it be tested by your Federal citizens through an opt-out provision. If you think this is a bill that most people would opt out of if they could on our side, give them a chance. The lawsuit is important, but this is a decision the Nation needs to make, and the lawsuit is one way to approach this. But the best way to come up with health care solutions is not going to court but having the Congress and the States and the people of America work together in a partnership. That is what we have not been able to achieve--a partnership where we listen to the States and the people, and from their input we pass laws in a bipartisan fashion.

That is what I hope will happen.

I thank my colleague. I have enjoyed the discussion.

I yield the floor.