[Pages S4460-S4472]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION
ACT--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

Gun Violence Epidemic

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, today we mark the 6-month
anniversary of a date that none of us will ever forget because it
transformed our lives, it transformed America, and it certainly
transformed Connecticut and the community of Newtown.
We commemorate the 6-month anniversary of that unspeakable,
unimaginable tragedy that cut short the lives of 20 beautiful, innocent
children and six dedicated, courageous educators.
It transformed America in so many ways. It changed our lives
irrevocably and, I hope, put us on a trajectory toward changes in our
laws that will prevent this kind of horrific, unimaginable tragedy from
ever happening again. Our challenge right here in this body, on this
floor, is to make sure we learn from it, that we act on it, and that we
keep faith with those families, as well as the Newtown community and
all of our country that lost so much that day.
December 14 began like so many other days for the parents of Newtown,
CT. They took their children to school, kissed them goodbye, and went
about their day with plans for play dates, Hanukkah and Christmas
holiday parties, and presents that they would give to those children
for those holidays. They planned snack breaks and holiday parties. They
wrapped presents. Just hours later, I stood with them and saw them
emerge from the Sandy Hook firehouse having learned that those children
would not be coming home that night.
I arrived in Newtown as a public official within hours of that
shooting. But

[[Page S4461]]

what I saw was through the eyes of a parent--grief-stricken, panicked
parents, tears streaming down their faces--who came hoping to reunite
with their children. Many parents did reunite. Children were brought to
all of the parents who gathered at the firehouse, and they left with
their children--until the families who realized that their children
would not be coming home.
I saw those families who lost beautiful, young children. Some of them
are here, along with adults--dedicated, courageous adults--families of
educators who died themselves trying to save their children. I will
never forget the cries of grief, anguish, pain, and disbelief.
Every parent in his or her DNA has something fundamental. It is about
trust and caring for children, making sure they come home at the end of
the day when they go to school; that they are kept safe in some very
basic and fundamental way. Society shares that trust. Society failed in
that trust.
We will never forget the loss and heartbreak of that tragic day in
Sandy Hook. But we also know that in the face of evil there was
tremendous goodness and heroism. There were genuine heroes: the first
responders who braved the unknown, hearing gunfire, charging into that
school, and stopping the shooting through their courage because the
shooter turned that gun on himself. There were the brave educators,
teachers, administrators, and school psychologists who threw themselves
in front of bullets or tried to save their children and perished
themselves. Then members of the community who came together in support
of the families and who themselves, along with first responders, are
continuing to recover. They exemplify the quintessential values of this
quintessential New England town that make us proud to be American.
Thirty-two members of the victims' families at the massacre wrote to
the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Through their unspeakable pain and
suffering, they asked Congress to honor the memory of their loved ones
by supporting measures to stem and stop the epidemic of gun
violence. They wrote, ``In the midst of our anguish we are compelled to
speak out to save others from suffering what we have endured.''

These brave families have come to Washington to tell their stories.
They sat in this very gallery. They met with colleagues. Some of our
colleagues refused to meet with them. I urged them to share some of
their hurt and meet with them, to hear their stories. We owe them
tremendous respect and gratitude. They enabled us to come to this point
where we are close to making fundamental changes in the law.
But in April, that day of the vote was a day of shame because the
Senate turned its back on the families of Newtown while some of them
watched in this very gallery. How to explain to those families or try
to explain how 90 percent of the American people could be in favor of
reasonable, commonsense measures that we proposed--background checks on
all firearms purchases and a ban on illegal traffic and straw
purchases, on assault weapons, and on excess capacity magazines--how 90
percent of the people could be in favor of those kinds of commonsense
measures, most especially the background checks, yet the Senate failed
to pass it.
Those families have been resolute and resilient at every turn. Mark
Barden, whose son Daniel was killed 6 months ago at Sandy Hook, wrote:

We are not defeated. We will always be here because we have
no other choice.

Despite their profound and harrowing loss, those parents, husbands,
wives, sisters, brothers, grandmothers have kept faith and they have
inspired us to keep faith. They uplifted us and their determination has
meant the world to colleagues who have heard them, and as an example of
grace under pressure and courage and strength, they have refused to
give up.
They will not give up, nor will we. We are coming back for another
vote. We will not allow that vote to be the final one. It may be the
first one, but it is not the final one, and we will win the last vote,
which is the one that counts.
In the meantime many of my colleagues have stood up to the special
interests and most especially the NRA, which was accustomed to having
its way and holding sway in this body, in Congress, just as a
schoolyard bully would. My colleagues have stood up to that bully once
and will do it again. This time we will win.
What happened in Newtown could happen anywhere in America. If it
happened there, it can happen in any town or city, and it has, in fact,
claimed the lives of 4,900 people since Newtown. Gun violence has
claimed their lives. I am constantly shocked and saddened by how
quickly that number rises each time I speak about this topic. Just last
week a man armed with semiautomatic AR-15 assault rifle and more than
1,300 rounds of ammunition, opened fire at a Santa Monica college and
killed five people.
The stories about Newtown, about all of the massacres since and
before--whether Columbine or Virginia Tech or Arizona and Tucson--
affirm that these laws can help save lives. These laws can help save
lives.
Six months ago I left the firehouse at Sandy Hook to attend a vigil
at a church in Newtown. The church was St. Rose of Lima, presided over
by Father Bob, Msgr. Robert Weiss. The church was filled. It was a
powerful and moving experience. People listened to the service through
the windows and the PA system outside.
I said that evening the world is watching Newtown. In fact, for 6
months the world has watched Newtown. It has seen a story of
unparalleled and unprecedented courage and fortitude. Now we will
continue to watch Newtown. But the world is also watching the Senate.
We need to be worthy of the courage and strength that Newtown has
demonstrated in moving ahead.
I thank the majority leader Harry Reid and all of my colleagues who
have determined that we will bring this bill back, not only to honor
the memories of the Newtown victims and keep faith with them but also
to make this country better and safer, worthy of these children,
beautiful and innocent at the time of their passing with all of their
future ahead of them. There were educators who worked for their whole
professional lives, trying to help children such as these young people.
Out of that grief and pain we can make America safer and stronger. We
can make America better. That is the potential legacy of these lost
lives, a better and safer America. If we achieve it, they will not have
died in vain.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I join my colleague from Connecticut on
the floor of the Senate to commemorate a sad day; 6 months since the
shootings in Newtown took the lives of 20 6- and 7-year-olds and 6 of
the teachers charged with protecting them. I know you share in our
sadness, Madam President, since it was not too long afterwards that
your State went through a tragedy of smaller and bigger proportions.
We have to wonder, 6 months later, after these families, the brothers
and the sisters and the moms and the dads of these victims coming down
to the Senate, over and over again, including this week, looking
Senator after Senator, Congressman after Congressman, in the eye and
asking for this place to learn something from this tragedy--we wonder
how 6 months later we have done nothing. We wonder how, if 20 little
kids dying at the hands of a mad man with a gun over the course of 5 or
10 minutes doesn't move this place to action, what would? What visit to
your office, what message, what story, what set of facts could possibly
make this place change the laws that have allowed for these
slaughters--plural--over and over again to happen?
It is 6 months later and we have done nothing. At least on the Senate
floor we raised the bill, we put it on for debate, we got 55 votes, and
the rules prevented us from getting it passed. The House down the hall
has done absolutely nothing. They have not lifted a finger to move
legislation for 6 months, 6 months later, and no answer to these
families.
I was there with Senator Blumenthal that afternoon in that firehouse.
Those are moments I would, a lot of days, love to have never lived--
things I did not need to see. But it changed my life and committed me
to action.
It commands us to understand that the most shallow argument that has
been posed, I would argue the most

[[Page S4462]]

backward argument that has been posed over the last 6 months, is that,
yes, these terrible things happen--the most terrible of them we are
marking the 6-month anniversary of--but there is nothing we could do
here that would change that; that very bad things are going to happen
to good people, to good first grade students, but that nothing here is
going to truly change any of that.
That is just flat wrong. It should not be every 6 months that we come
to the floor to try to rebut that argument. It should be every day.
Because in Columbine, the guns that were bought to slaughter those high
school students were bought outside of the background check system--
intentionally so, because the person who bought them knew if they went
into a legitimate gun store they would not be able to purchase the guns
that were being requested, so they went to a gun show, around the
background check system.
We know different laws would change things because in Aurora the
shooter went in with a 100-round drum and the shooting stopped and
people escaped, including a couple of my constituents, because the gun
jammed. They had trouble switching these massive ammunition clips.
In Newtown, we know the power of the gun that was used. These assault
weapons are all over the place today. They have become commonplace. But
it does not belie the fact that they still have a power to kill that
few other guns do, so much so that when Lanza walked into that school
that day, fired over 150 rounds, shot 20 kids, not a single one of them
survived. Every kid he shot died, in part because of the power of that
gun. That same day a very sick man walked into a school in China, armed
with a weapon, attacked over 20 children and every single one of them
lived. That guy had a knife.
Assault weapons, if we continue to allow them to ripple throughout
our streets, lead to mass slaughters. High-capacity ammunition clips,
when somebody chooses to engage in one of these massacres, allow more
people to be killed. Our failure, over and over again, to pass
comprehensive background checks is unacceptable, given the number of
criminals and the number of people with severe mental illness who are
still allowed to get guns over the Internet or in gun shows; 6 months
and we have done nothing.
But I stand here, frankly, more optimistic about human nature than I
was 6 months ago, not less optimistic. I might be less optimistic about
this place and about the Congress, but I am more optimistic about the
indomitable human spirit than I was when this started out.
Senator Blumenthal said it best. That 10 minutes of grievous
violence, mental illness masquerading as evil inside that school, was
essentially enveloped by the millions of acts of humanity that just
flowed forth from Newtown, from Connecticut, from all over the country,
whether it was the heroism of those teachers, whether it was the
firefighters, the volunteer fighters who stayed at that firehouse for
days or weeks on end with no pay or just the thousands of gifts--teddy
bears, small tokens of appreciation of the community that came from all
over the country.
People are good. They truly are. Despite what that young man did, it
reaffirmed my faith in who we are.
Last Friday night, the Sandy Hook Fire Department had their big
annual fundraiser. Some people wondered whether they would do it. First
of all, they said they were going to do it because they were not going
to start changing the way they did things and, second, they needed the
money because they expended a lot of effort and equipment and resources
in responding to this tragedy. On Friday we had an absolute deluge in
New England. It was raining cats and dogs all day. There was no reason
they should have gone forward on Friday night with that lobster bake at
the Sandy Hook firehouse, but they decided to put it on, and I went,
despite thinking there were going to be about six people inside that
firehouse. It was packed, jammed full of people, not just from Newtown
but from all over New England who came down on a torrentially raining
evening to show their support for those firefighters, for that
community, and for those families. That is what defines Newtown.
Six months later, we know the headlines still read about the 26 kids
and adults who lost their lives there. But what we know Newtown to be
today is a place full of love, full of compassion, and--though not
maybe today yet--a place that will, 1 year, 5 years, 10 years down the
line be defined by resiliency.
I wish we weren't down here commemorating 6 months. I wish we weren't
down here commemorating nothing having been done over the course of 6
months. But we are not going away. We are not giving up. The families
who were down here this week didn't turn into advocates for 4 months,
they turned into advocates for 40 years, and they will be back again
and again until we have an answer for these mass tragedies and for the
5,033 people who have died at the hands of guns since December 14--6
months ago.
I yield back the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank the
Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from Delaware, who is not
only an outstanding Member of the Senate, but he is the chairman of the
homeland security committee. He has gone out of his way to understand
the issues we face when we are addressing border security. The chairman
was kind enough to visit the border between Arizona and Sonora, Mexico,
and spent a lot of time with us and with the people who are entrusted
to secure the border. He made some remarks I think were entirely
accurate about the challenges we face in enforcing our border. So I
wish to again thank the distinguished chairman of the homeland security
committee.
I wish to address a few aspects of comprehensive immigration reform
that need to be discussed. First of all, everybody says--and I say it
too--we don't want to return to 1986 because in 1986 we guaranteed the
American people we would secure the border, and it would never happen
again. Well, the fact is, when we look at what we did in 1986--and I
will, first of all, plead guilty for having voted for it--the only
mandate in the entire legislation which gave ``amnesty'' to 3 million
people was:

Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under
paragraph one, sufficient funds shall be available to provide
for an increase in the Border Patrol personnel of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service so that the average
level of such personnel in each of the fiscal years 1987 and
1988 is at least 50 percent higher than such level for fiscal
year 1986.

Let me translate that. It meant we would increase the Border Patrol.
That was the only mention of how we were going to secure the border
after we gave amnesty in 1986. And at that time, I say to my
colleagues, the cost, as I mentioned, was 50 percent higher. The Border
Patrol has to be 50 percent higher.
Well, the number of Border Patrol agents in 1986 was 4,000--4,000.
Now we have 21,000. So there was really nothing in the 1986 bill about
fencing, about sensors, about other ways to get our border secure. So
we learned from that.
We learned from that, and this legislation that recently passed
through the Judiciary Committee and is now on the floor, as compared
with 1986 where they said they would increase the numbers of Border
Patrol agents by 50 percent--this legislation appropriates $3 billion
in funding for the comprehensive southern border security strategy. No
one who is in RPI status will be able to petition for a green card
until certain requirements are fulfilled, including the following: E-
Verify in use by all employers, an entry-exit system in place, $1.5
billion in additional funding for the southern border fencing strategy
that has to be submitted within 180 days of passage of this legislation
and signed by the President.
It sets the goal of a 90-percent effectiveness rate for all southern
border States. If that goal is not reached within 5 years, there will
be a bipartisan commission formed and authorized to spend $2 billion in
additional funds to secure the border.

[[Page S4463]]

It will add an additional 3,500 Customs and Border Patrol agents.
Remember, in 1986, there was a total of 4,000.
It will authorize the National Guard to provide assistance along the
border if requested. The National Guard has had tremendous success on
our border. No, they don't carry weapons, but they do incredibly
important work, and I am glad they don't carry weapons, to tell the
truth.
The bill funds additional Border Patrol stations and forward
operating bases.
It increases something called Operation Stonegarden funding, which is
vital, in my view, in disincentivizing people to frequently cross the
border, and strengthens Border Patrol training.
It authorizes funds to triple the border-crossing prosecutions in the
Tucson sector. Why do I mention the Tucson sector? Not because I am
from the State of Arizona but because the Tucson sector for years has
been a major thoroughfare for both people and drugs.
The current bill will authorize funds to help States and localities
incarcerate criminal unauthorized illegal immigrants.
It grants the Department of Homeland Security access to Federal
lands. That is a problem on our border, where we have an Indian
reservation that is right on the border. They are sovereign nations,
and this will authorize a greater ability for us to have access to
those lands. There are wildlife refuges we need access to as well.
The bill removes the discretion from the Secretary of Homeland
Security to develop the southern border strategy and provides the
minimum requirements recommended by the Border Patrol. Those are the
people on the ground. These are the people who today, in 120-degree
heat at the Sonora, AZ, border, are sitting in vehicles and patrolling
our border to keep our Nation secure. This is recommended by them and
must be included in the strategy that we want to achieve and must
achieve, which is 100 percent situational awareness of each and every
1-mile segment of the southern border.
The technology list will include, but is not limited to, sector-by-
sector requirements for integrated fixed towers, VADER radar systems.
These radar track people back from where they came.
The list includes unmanned aerial systems--what we know as drones--
fixed cameras, mobile surveillance systems, ground sensors, handheld
thermal imaging systems, infrared cameras, thermal imaging cameras,
license plate readers, and radiation detection systems. All of these
are part of this legislation and the billions of dollars we are going
to spend to improve border security. We all admit the border is more
secure, but where I disagree with the Secretary of Homeland Security is
that it is not secure enough.
So we want to prevent the adjustment of status RPI, which is
registered permanent status, for people who will be granted it once the
passage of this bill is achieved until that strategy is deployed and
operational--deployed and operational. This is just to achieve a legal
status in this country; also, a technology list before anybody can
adjust RPI to green card status.
It removes the sole discretion from the Department of Homeland
Security to certify the strategy is complete. It requires written,
third-party certification to the President and Congress that affirms
the elements required by the strategy are operational and capable of
achieving effective control of the border.
With these tools in place, we can achieve situational awareness and
be guaranteed this technology is deployed and working along the border.
So I say to my friends who say we do not have sufficient provisions for
border security, we will be glad to do more, but let's look at this.
Look at what we are doing: billions of dollars of technology as well
as additional people, as well as other measures, including the E-
Verify. The magnet that draws people to this country is jobs, and if
the word is out that unless an E-Verify is in operation--unless a
person can get a job in this country they are not going to come here
unless it is through a legal means and not through illegal means.
We are a nation of immigrants. I would remind my colleagues again, 40
percent of the people who are in this country illegally did not cross
our border. They came on a visa that expired. So we need to have
footprints and other physical evidence of illegal crossings. It is a
tool for Border Patrol agents to identify and locate illegal border
crossers. But it is imprecise. That is why we need to have this
technology, so we can surveil and have situational awareness of the
entire border.
The General Accounting Office is an organization all of us over time
begin to rely on enormously, and I will quote from them:

In terms of collecting data, Border Patrol officials
reported that sectors rely on a different mix of cameras,
sign cutting--

That is tracking footprints--

credible sources, and visual observation to identify and
report the number of turn backs and gotaways.

Turnbacks are those we catch and turn back, and gotaways are those we
see come across and do not apprehend.
Again, quoting the GAO:

According to Border Patrol officials, the ability to obtain
accurate or consistent data using these identification
sources depends on various factors such as terrain and
weather. For example, data on turn backs and gotaways may be
understated in areas with rugged mountains and steep canyons
that can hinder detection of illegal entries. In other cases,
data may be overstated--for example, in cases where the same
turn back identified by a camera is also identified by
tracks. Double counting may also occur when agents in one
zone record as a gotaway an individual who is apprehended and
then reported as an apprehension in another zone. As a result
of these data limitations, Border Patrol headquarters
officials said that while they consider turn back and gotaway
data sufficiently reliable to assess each sector's progress
toward border security and to inform sector decisions
regarding resource deployment, they do not consider the data
sufficiently reliable to compare--or externally report--
results across sectors.

That is why we need this technology.
Now, I wish to point out that from the Border Patrol, not from the
Department of Homeland Security, I got a detailed list of what they
believe is necessary, using their experience, as to the specific
equipment and capabilities they need on each of the nine sectors of the
border.
For example, in the Arizona sectors, including Yuma and Tucson, we
need 56 towers, 73 fixed camera systems, 28 mobile surveillance
systems, 685 unattended ground sensors, and 22 handheld equipment
devices.
At points of entry or checkpoints we need one nonintrusive inspection
system, and the list goes on. It is a specific list of what the Border
Patrol believes we need in each of the nine sectors on our southern
border in order to give us 100 percent situational awareness and put us
on the path to a 90-percent effective control of the border.
So I say to my friends who say we cannot control our border, I
respectfully disagree because of what we are doing in this legislation.
And those who say we are unable to keep track of what goes on at our
border, I would argue that the minimum requirements to be included in
the southern border security strategy as provided by the Border Patrol
should convince anyone of what we need.
I ask unanimous consent that these minimum requirements be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Minimum requirements to be included in the Southern Border Security
Strategy

Arizona (Yuma and Tucson Sectors)

Between the ports of entry

50 Integrated Fixed Towers (with relocation capability)
73 Fixed Camera Systems (with relocation capability), which
include Remote Video Surveillance Systems
28 Mobile Surveillance Systems, which include mobile video
surveillance systems, agent-portable surveillance systems,
and mobile surveillance capability systems
685 Unattended Ground Sensors, including seismic, imaging,
and infrared
22 Handheld Equipment Devices, including handheld thermal
imaging systems and night vision goggles.

At points of entry, checkpoints

1 Non-intrusive Inspection System
7 Fiber-optic Tank Inspection Scopes
19 License Plate Readers, including mobile, tactical, and
fixed
2 Backscatter
14 Portable Contraband Detectors
2 Radiation Isotope Identification Devices
18 Radiation Isotope Identification Devices updates
16 Personal Radiation Detectors
24 Mobile Automated Targeting Systems

[[Page S4464]]

3 Land Automated Targeting Systems

Air and Marine

3 VADER radar systems
6 Air Mobility Helicopters

San Diego

Between the ports of entry

3 Integrated Fixed Towers (with relocation capability)
41 Fixed Camera Systems (with relocation capability), which
include Remote Video Surveillance Systems
14 Mobile Surveillance Systems, which include mobile video
surveillance systems, agent-portable surveillance systems,
and mobile surveillance capability systems
393 Unattended Ground Sensors, including seismic, imaging,
and infrared
83 Handheld Equipment Devices, including handheld thermal
imaging systems and night vision goggles.

At points of entry, checkpoints

2 Non-intrusive Inspection Systems, including fixed and
mobile
1 Radiation Portal Monitor

Air and Marine

2 Aerial Downlink Communication Systems
12 Night Vision Goggles
5 Forward Looking Infrared Radar Cameras
2 Search Radar
1 Long Range Thermal Imaging Camera
3 Radar for use in the maritime environment
1 Day Color Camera
3 Cameras for use in the maritime environment
1 Littoral Detection & Classification Network

El Centro

Between the ports of entry

66 Fixed Camera Systems (with relocation capability), which
include Remote Video Surveillance Systems
18 Mobile Surveillance Systems, which include mobile video
surveillance systems, agent-portable surveillance systems,
and mobile surveillance capability systems
85 Unattended Ground Sensors, including seismic, imaging,
and infrared
57 Handheld Equipment Devices, including handheld thermal
imaging systems and night vision goggles.
2 Sensor Repeaters
2 Communications Repeaters

At points of entry, checkpoints

5 Fiber-optic Tank Inspection Scopes
1 License Plate Reader
1 Backscatter
2 Portable Contraband Detectors
2 Radiation Isotope Identification Devices
8 Radiation Isotope Identification Devices updates
3 Personal Radiation Detectors
16 Mobile Automated Targeting Systems

Air and Marine

2 Aerial Downlink Communication Systems
3 Aerial Receiver Communication Systems
2 Forward Looking Infrared Radar Cameras
1 Unmanned Aerial System

El Paso

Between the ports of entry

27 Integrated Fixed Towers (with relocation capability)
71 Fixed Camera Systems (with relocation capability), which
include Remote Video Surveillance Systems
31 Mobile Surveillance Systems, which include mobile video
surveillance systems, agent-portable surveillance systems,
and mobile surveillance capability systems
170 Unattended Ground Sensors, including seismic, imaging,
and infrared
24 Handheld equipment devices, including handheld thermal
imaging systems and night vision goggles.
1 Portable Camera Tower
1 Sensor Repeater
2 Camera Refresh

At points of entry, checkpoints

4 Non-intrusive Inspection Systems, including fixed and
mobile
23 Fiber-optic Tank Inspection Scopes
1 Portable Contraband Detectors
19 Radiation Isotope Identification Devices updates
1 Real time Radioscopy version 4
8 Personal Radiation Detectors

Air and Marine

1 Aerial Downlink Communication Systems
7 Aerial Receivers
24 Night Vision Goggles
4 Forward Looking Infrared Radar Cameras
20 Global Positioning Systems
17 UAS Radio Systems

Big Bend

Between the ports of entry

7 Fixed Camera Systems (with relocation capability), which
include Remote Video Surveillance Systems
29 Mobile Surveillance Systems, which include mobile video
surveillance systems, agent-portable surveillance systems,
and mobile surveillance capability systems
1105 Unattended Ground Sensors, including seismic, imaging,
and infrared
131 Handheld Equipment Devices, including handheld thermal
imaging systems and night vision goggles
1 Mid-range Camera Refresh
1 Improved Surveillance Capabilities for existing aerostat
27 Sensor Repeaters
27 Communications Repeaters

At points of entry, checkpoints

7 Fiber-optic Tank Inspection Scopes
3 License Plate Readers, including mobile, tactical, and
fixed
12 Portable Contraband Detectors
7 Radiation Isotope Identification Devices
12 Radiation Isotope Identification Devices updates
254 Personal Radiation Detectors
19 Mobile Automated Targeting Systems

Air and Marine

6 Aerial Receiver Communication Systems
3 Forward Looking Infrared Radar Cameras
UAS Radio Systems

Del Rio

Between the ports of entry

3 Integrated Fixed Towers (with relocation capability)
74 Fixed Camera Systems (with relocation capability), which
include Remote Video Surveillance Systems
47 Mobile Surveillance Systems, which include mobile video
surveillance systems, agent-portable surveillance systems,
and mobile surveillance capability systems
868 Unattended Ground Sensors, including seismic, imaging,
and infrared
174 Handheld Equipment Devices, including handheld thermal
imaging systems and night vision goggles
26 Mobile/Handheld Inspection Scopes and Sensors for
checkpoints
1 Improved Surveillance Capabilities for existing aerostat
21 Sensor Repeaters
21 Communications Repeaters

At points of entry, checkpoints

4 License Plate Readers, including mobile, tactical, and
fixed
13 Radiation Isotope Identification Devices updates
3 Mobile Automated Targeting Systems
6 Land Automated Targeting Systems

Air and Marine

8 Aerial Receiver Communication Systems
15 Night Vision Goggles
7 Forward Looking Infrared Radar Cameras
3 Forward Looking Infrared Radar Cameras with marine
capabilities

Laredo

Between the ports of entry

2 Integrated Fixed Towers (with relocation capability)
69 Fixed Camera Systems (with relocation capability), which
include Remote Video Surveillance Systems
38 Mobile Surveillance Systems, which include mobile video
surveillance systems, agent-portable surveillance systems,
and mobile surveillance capability systems
573 Unattended Ground Sensors, including seismic, imaging,
and infrared
124 Handheld Equipment Devices, including handheld thermal
imaging systems and night vision goggles
38 Sensor Repeaters
38 Communications Repeaters

At points of entry, checkpoints

Air and Marine

6 Aerial Receiver Communication Systems
2 Remote Video Terminals
3 Forward Looking Infrared Radar Cameras
6 Forward Looking Infrared Radar Cameras with marine
capability
2 Medium Lift Helicopters

Rio Grande Valley

Between the ports of entry

1 Integrated Fixed Towers (with relocation capability)
83 Fixed Camera Systems (with relocation capability), which
include Remote Video Surveillance Systems
25 Mobile Surveillance Systems, which include mobile video
surveillance systems, agent-portable surveillance systems,
and mobile surveillance capability systems
716 Unattended Ground Sensors, including seismic, imaging,
and infrared
205 Handheld Equipment Devices, including handheld thermal
imaging systems and night vision goggles.
4 Portable Camera Towers
4 Sensor Repeaters
1 Communications Repeater
2 Camera Refresh

At points of entry, checkpoints

1 Mobile Non-intrusive Inspection System
11 Fiberoptic Tank Inspection Scopes
1 License Plate Reader
2 Backscatter
2 Card Reader System
8 Portable Contraband Detectors
5 Radiation Isotope Identification Devices
18 Radiation Isotope Identification Devices updates
135 Personal Radiation Detectors

Air and Marine

3 VADER Radar Systems
2 Aerial Downlink Communication Systems

[[Page S4465]]

12 Aerial Receiver Communication Systems
2 Forward Looking Infrared Radar Cameras
3 Omni-directional Antennae
28 Forward Looking Infrared Radar Cameras with marine
capabilities
1 Unmanned Aerial System

Mr. McCAIN. I see my distinguished friend from Vermont on the floor,
who is always worth listening to, so I will be brief.
I wish to share with our colleagues another aspect of this problem
that we really have not talked about very much, and that is the issue
of drugs. Drugs are a problem of enormous proportion in this country.
We see the effects of illegal drugs such as methamphetamine and others,
and we see it is doing incredible damage to our Nation and particularly
to our young people.
This document is called the Arizona High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Area Threat Assessment of 2013. Now, I am not going to go into a lot of
the details, but there are some stark facts about the flow of drugs
across our southern border that should disturb all of us. I quote:

The Tucson and Phoenix areas remain the primary
distribution hubs for ton quantities of marijuana in the
southwest region--

Ton quantities of marijuana in the southwest region--

as Tucson and Phoenix-based sources sell throughout the
United States.

In other words, the drugs come up across the Arizona-Sonora border,
they are tracked by guides on mountaintops and into Phoenix, and from
Phoenix they are distributed throughout the country.
The Phoenix field DEA--Drug Enforcement Agency--Phoenix field
division's biannual drug price list for 2012 indicates marijuana in the
Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas remained stable during the period
January 2011 to 2012.
Why is that important? Because the only real indication as to whether
we are reducing a supply is the price of that supply. So when we see
the price of marijuana on the street in Phoenix and Tucson is exactly
what it was for the entire year, no matter what we see in the papers
and on television of these large apprehensions, unless the price is
going up, then we are not apprehending these drugs.
So I just want to mention a couple of other facts to my colleagues
and why I think we are not addressing the drug problem sufficiently in
this legislation.
The assessment continues:

The retail price of methamphetamine decreased in the
Phoenix area and now ranges from $500 to $1,000 per ounce.

If there is a terrible drug on the market today, it has to be
methamphetamine. I am told that one--one--ingestion of methamphetamine
makes a person an addict. So what have we been able to do as far as
methamphetamine? The retail price of methamphetamine decreased, which
obviously means the supply has certainly not been impacted.

Wholesale black tar heroin prices in Arizona have remained
stable or decreased slightly, including market stability.
Only 35 percent of the HIDTA--

The high density trafficking area--

respondents reported high cocaine availability in their
respective jurisdictions. Intelligence indicates cocaine
price increases in Mexico and Arizona during the past year
may have impacted the supply of cocaine to the Arizona
drug market, thus impacting other drug markets.

So that is good news.
Continuing to read from the threat assessment: The price per kilogram
of cocaine increased $5,000 to $6,000 per kilogram in the Phoenix area.
My friends, I know my colleagues are very busy, but I would at least
have your staff read this threat assessment of 2013 in the State of
Arizona. Again, I do not say that because I represent the State of
Arizona. But these same people--the Drug Enforcement Agency--will tell
you still the bulk of illegal drugs crossing our southern border comes
through the Arizona-Tucson sector.
So what is my recipe on this situation? Frankly, I do not know a real
good recipe because clearly demand is either stable or on the rise in
the United States of America depending on to whom you talk. In some
places in America, the use of drugs is glamorized. In some places, it
is kind of the sophisticated thing to do. I do not think there is any
doubt that there are influences in the United States of America that
increase the attractiveness of drugs to our citizens.
I am not saying I know the answer, but I do think that as we address
the issue of border security, we have to understand that if there is a
demand for drugs in the streets of every major city in America, they
will use all ultralights, they will use submarines, they will use
tunnels, they will do whatever is necessary in order to get that supply
to where there is a market.
I will never forget being down in Colombia, where the government
people there showed me a submarine the drug cartel people had built--a
very sophisticated submarine. They had hired engineers to build it. It
was one that travels under the water--not far but under the water.
I said: How much did it cost them to build this?
He said: Five million dollars.
I said: Five millions dollars. That is a lot of money.
The guy said: They make $15 million in one load--in one load.
So I am not coming to this floor with a lot of answers, but I am
coming to the floor of this Senate and saying that the drug issue in
this country is a serious one, and if anybody thinks we are reducing
the supply of those drugs, I think the facts contradict that, and it is
time we started seriously as a society addressing what is killing our
young and old Americans.
So, again, I thank my colleagues for their consideration of this
legislation. I really came to the floor to convince them that this is a
far different situation from 1986. We have gone from 4,000 border
agents to 21,000. We have put in all kinds of barriers to the border.
But, most importantly, as the Presiding Officer from Delaware pointed
out earlier today, we now have technology that can surveil and
interdict people from crossing our border. Our challenge is to get it
done.
I thank my colleague from Vermont for his patience, and I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me congratulate Senator McCain for
all of his hard work in the Gang of 8 and his focus on border security,
which is an enormously important issue.
As the son of an immigrant--my dad came to this country at the age of
17 from Poland--I strongly support the concept of immigration reform,
and I applaud the Judiciary Committee and all of those people who have
been working hard on this legislation.
There are a lot of provisions within this bill that I think should be
strongly supported by the American people.
I strongly support a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million
undocumented immigrants in this country. Bringing undocumented workers
out of the shadows and giving them legal status will make it more
difficult, among many other things, for employers to undercut the wages
and benefits of all workers and will be good for our entire economy--a
very important step forward.
I strongly support the DREAM Act to make sure the children of illegal
immigrants who were brought into this country by their parents years
ago are allowed to become citizens.
I strongly support providing legal status to foreign workers on
family farms. Dairy farmers in Vermont and the owners of apple orchards
in my State have told me that without these workers, they would go out
of business, and it is obviously true in many parts of this country.
We also need to make sure, as Senator McCain has just elaborated,
that our borders are more secure and prevent unscrupulous employers
from hiring those who have come here illegally.
All of those provisions are extremely important, are included in the
legislation passed out of the Judiciary Committee last week, and are
provisions I support. I commend my colleague from Vermont Senator Pat
Leahy for his leadership on those issues. But let me tell you some of
what concerns me very much about the bill as it presently stands.
At a time when nearly 14 percent of the American people do not have a
full-time job, at a time when the middle class continues to disappear,
and at a time when tens of millions of Americans are working longer
hours for lower wages, it makes no sense to me

[[Page S4466]]

that the immigration reform bill includes a massive increase in
temporary guest worker programs that will allow large corporations to
import and bring into this country hundreds of thousands of temporary
blue-collar and white-collar guest workers from overseas. That makes no
sense to me.
I am particularly concerned that at a time when college is becoming
increasingly unaffordable--and every parent out there with a high
school kid is worried about how that family is going to afford college
for their kids--at a time when young people desperately need jobs to
help pay for the cost of a college education, this bill will make it
more difficult for young Americans to find the jobs they need.
Today, youth unemployment is over 16 percent, and the teen
unemployment rate is over 25 percent. Unfortunately, many of the jobs
that used to be performed by young Americans are now being done by
foreign college students through the J-1 Summer Work Travel Program and
the H-2B guest worker program.
Millions of Americans, including myself--and I suspect many Members
of Congress--earned money when they were young at summer jobs or at
part-time jobs when they were in college in order to pay for the cost
of college. Some Americans today are working as waiters and waitresses.
They are working as lifeguards. They are working as front-desk clerks
at hotels and resorts. They are working as ski instructors, as cooks,
chefs, kitchen personnel, chambermaids, landscapers, and many other
similar jobs. And there is nothing any American has to be embarrassed
about at working at any of those jobs or any other job in order to earn
some income to pay the bills or to make some money in order to afford
to go to college. There is nothing anybody should be ashamed about
doing that kind of work. What I worry about very much is the degree to
which those jobs will be available for young Americans as a result of
the J-1 program and the H-2B program.
It pains me very deeply that with minority unemployment
extraordinarily high--I was just in Detroit last week talking to kids
who are working so hard, and they are working for $7.25 an hour at
McDonald's or other fast food places--if they are lucky enough to get
that work. Many of them would like to go to college but are unable to
earn the money they need in order to go to college. It seems to me
terribly wrong that we have programs such as this J-1 Summer Work
Travel Program which brings students from all over the world into the
United States to take jobs that young Americans want to do.
The J-1 program for foreign college students is supposed to be--is
supposed to be--used as a cultural exchange program, a program to bring
young people into this country to learn about our way of life, our
customs, and to support international cooperation and understanding.
Those are extremely important goals. I believe in that passionately.
When I was mayor of the city of Burlington, we started sister-city
programs with towns around the world in order to develop that type of
understanding and cooperation. That is the theory of what the J-1
program is supposed to be, and a wonderful goal it is.
Unfortunately, that is not what it is today. Today the J-1 program
has morphed into a low-wage jobs program to allow corporations such as
Hershey's and McDonald's and many others to replace young American
workers with cheaper labor from abroad. Each and every year companies
from all over this country are hiring more than 100,000 foreign college
students in low-wage jobs through the J-1 Summer Work Travel Program.
Unlike other guest worker programs, the J-1 Summer Work Travel
Program does not require businesses to recruit American workers for
these positions, offer jobs to willing and able Americans first, or to
pay prevailing wages. In other words, if there are jobs out there that
our young people would like to get in order to put aside a few bucks or
help pay for the cost of a college education, the employer is not
obliged to reach out to these young Americans. It is one thing for an
employer to say: Look, I reached out, tried to get some young people to
do this job, could not find them, and I had to go abroad. I can
understand that. But that is not the requirement of this J-1 program.
Let me read from a Web site of a foreign labor recruiter touting the
benefits of using the J-1 Summer Work Travel Program to employers in
the United States. This Web site is called jobofer.org. This is one, as
I understand it, of many. But here is what it says. I quote from the
Web site jobofer.org. This is going to employers who need unskilled
workers for the summer.

Whether you are running an amusement park, a water park, a
concessions stand, a golf club, a circus, a zoo, or anything
else where people come to enjoy themselves, it's a great idea
not to miss the opportunities of the season and hire
international seasonal workers to cover your growing staffing
needs.

International seasonal workers.

Jobofer.org has experience in matching candidates from
foreign exchange students with amusement firms all over the
USA, covering every type of entry level position you may want
to cover with seasonal staffing.
The Work And Travel USA program allows exchange students
from abroad to work in the US for up to 4 months during the
buzz season under a J1 visa.
Jobofer.org is committed to understanding your needs as an
amusement business and handling all the seasonal staffing
procedures for you, at absolutely no cost. Check out the list
of positions typically filled with international exchange
students . . .

Now, what this Web site is doing is telling employers--in this case,
they are just focusing on amusement parks, but obviously it goes much
beyond that into all kinds of resorts, many other areas--but what they
are simply saying is that we need unskilled labor.
One knows that historically in this country that is what young people
did. When you were in high school, when you were in college, you would
try to make a few bucks. You go out and you get a summer job. Maybe you
could earn a couple of thousand dollars. Maybe it starts you on a
career or maybe it is money to put aside to go to college. I did it.
Many Members of the Senate did it. Millions of young people in this
country want to do it.
What these companies are saying is: You do not need to hire kids in
your community anymore. You do not have to reach out to minority kids
who desperately need a job, to kids in Vermont who want to put away a
few bucks to go to college. You do not have to do that anymore. We will
help you bring in young people from all over the world to do those
jobs.
One of the arguments we hear on the floor is we need highly skilled
workers because high-tech companies cannot attract the scientists and
the engineers and the physicists and the mathematicians they need. When
we bring them in, these guys are going to help create jobs in America.
Maybe. That is a whole other issue for discussion. But nobody can tell
me we need to bring young people from all over the world to work at
entry-level jobs because there are not young Americans who want to do
that job, when the unemployment rate of young people in this country is
extraordinarily high. Nobody with a straight face can make that claim.
Here are some of the jobs being advertised on this very same Web
site. There are many Web sites like it. This one focuses on jobs within
the amusement industry: Ride operators/attendants, game operators, food
service--flipping hamburgers--lifeguard. I guess we have no young
people in America who are capable of being lifeguards. Nobody in
America can swim and get a job as a lifeguard. I guess we need to bring
people from all over the world to be lifeguards. Guest relations,
admissions, security, games and attractions, merchandise, grounds
quality, season pass processor, entertainment wardrobe, warehouse,
safari gatekeepers and wardens, parking lot attendant. I guess nobody
in America could be a parking lot attendant. Landscape, cash control.
Here is the interesting point. The Web site, after mentioning all of
those jobs specific to the amusement industry, asks the following
questions: What happens--interesting question. What happens when you
use seasonal employment for your theme or amusement park? Here is the
answer this foreign labor recruiter gives on its Web site:

You cover your seasonal staffing needs with young, highly
motivated, English-speaking international staff from 18 to 28
years old and cut costs by paying fewer taxes.

Got that? You can bring in international workers, students from
abroad, and one of the advantages you have is you pay lower taxes on
that foreign worker than you do for an American worker.

[[Page S4467]]

In fact, under the J-1 Summer Work Travel Program, employers do not
have to pay Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment taxes, which
amounts to a payroll savings of about 8.45 percent per employee. What a
bargain. So we are enticing--we are giving an incentive to a company to
bring foreign workers into this country and saving them money by hiring
foreign workers at the expense of young Americans who certainly can do
those jobs.
Under the J-1 program, employers do not have to pay Social Security
and Medicare payroll taxes. They do not have to pay unemployment taxes.
They do not have to offer jobs to Americans first. They do not have to
pay wages that are comparable to what American workers make. What
employer in America would want to hire a young American as a lifeguard
or a ski instructor or a waiter or a waitress, or any other low-skilled
job, when they can hire a foreign college student instead at a
significant reduction in cost?
I understand the immigration reform bill we are debating reforms this
program by requiring foreign labor recruiters to pay a $500 fee for
every foreign college student they bring into this country. Right now,
foreign college students bear all of these costs. But in my opinion,
that is not good enough. This program is a real disservice to the young
people in this country.
I believe in cultural exchanges. I would put a lot more money into
cultural exchanges so our young people can go abroad, so young people
from all over the world could attend our high schools. That would be a
great thing. But that is not what this J-1 program is. It is a program
which is displacing young American workers at a time of double-digit
unemployment among youth, and it is putting downward pressure on wages
at a time when the American people are in many cases working longer
hours for lower wages.
In my opinion, this particular program should be abolished. Cultural
program, yes; but bringing in young people to take jobs from young
Americans, no. At the very least, if we are not going to abolish this
program, we need to make sure we have a comparable summer and year-
round jobs program for our young people in order to help them pay for
college and to move up the economic ladder. At the very least, that is
what should be in this bill.
That is why I will be filing an amendment today to the immigration
reform bill to create a youth jobs program. My amendment would provide
States with $1.5 billion in immediate funding to support a 2-year
summer and year-round jobs program for low-income youth and
economically disadvantaged young adults. This amendment is modeled on
the summer and year-round youth jobs program included in President
Obama's American Jobs Act.
This amendment would build on the success from the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, which provided $1.2 billion in funding for the
WIA Youth Jobs Program. This program created over 374,000 summer job
opportunities during 2009 and 2010 for young Americans who desperately
needed those jobs. This amendment, in fact, would create even more
jobs.
Let me be very clear. The same corporations and businesses that
support a massive expansion in guest worker programs are opposed to
raising the minimum wage. They have long supported the outsourcing of
American jobs. They have reduced wages and benefits of American workers
at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high. In too many
cases, the H-2B program for lower skilled guest workers and the H-1B
for high-skilled guest workers are being used by employers to drive
down the wages and benefits of American workers and to replace American
workers with cheap labor from abroad.
The immigration reform bill that passed the Senate Judiciary
Committee could increase the number of low-skilled guest workers by as
much as 800 percent over the next 5 years and could more than triple
the number of temporary white-collar guest workers coming into this
country. That is the basic issue. That is my basic concern. At a time
when unemployment is so high, does it make a whole lot of sense to be
bringing hundreds of thousands of workers from all over the world into
this country to fill jobs American workers desperately need?

The high-tech industry tells us they need the H-1B program so they
can hire the best and the brightest science, technology, engineering,
and math workers in the world, and that there are not enough qualified
American workers in these fields. In some cases--let me be very
honest--I think that is true. I think there are some companies in some
parts of the country that are unable to attract American workers to do
the jobs that are needed. I believe in those instances, corporations
should have the right to bring in foreign workers so the corporation
can do the business it is supposed to be doing.
But having said that, let me also tell you some facts: In 2010, 54
percent of the H-1B guest workers were employed in entry-level jobs and
performed ``routine tasks requiring limited judgment,'' according to
the Government Accountability Office. Routine tasks.
So when a lot of my friends here talk about high-tech workers, they
are talking about scientists, they are talking about all of these guys
who are doing a great job, but that is not necessarily the case. Only 6
percent of H-1B visas were given to workers with highly specialized
skills in 2010, according to the GAO. More than 80 percent of H-1B
guest workers are paid wages that are less than American workers in
comparable positions, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
Over 9 million Americans have degrees in a STEM-related field, but
only about 3 million have a job in one. Last year, the top 10 employers
of H-1B guest workers were all offshore outsourcing companies. These
firms are responsible for shipping large numbers of American
information technology jobs to India and other countries. Half of all
recent college graduates majoring in computer and information science
in the United States did not receive jobs in the information technology
sector. So it seems to me this is an issue we have got to deal with.
The second amendment I will be filing today is with Senators Grassley
and Harkin. That amendment would prohibit companies that have announced
mass layoffs over the past year from hiring guest workers unless these
companies can prove their overall employment will not be reduced as a
result of these mass layoffs. In other words, what we are seeing is a
very clear trend. Large corporations are throwing American workers out
on the street, and they are bringing in foreign workers to do those
very same jobs.
Many of those very same companies have moved parts of their corporate
world away from the United States into Third World countries. So this
continues the attack on American workers. We must stop it.
Let me give you a few examples as I conclude my remarks. In 2012,
Hewlett-Packard, one of the large American corporations, announced it
was laying off 30,000 workers at the same time it hired more than 660
H-1B guest workers. In 2012, Cisco laid off 1,300 employees at the same
time it hired more than 330 H-1B guest workers. In 2012, Yahoo hired
more than 135 H-1B guest workers at the same time it announced it was
laying off over 2,000 workers. Research in Motion hired 24 H-1B guest
workers at the same time it laid off over 5,000 people.
I think it makes no sense at all that corporations that are laying
off American workers are now reaching into the H-1B program to bring in
foreign workers.
Let me conclude by saying there is much in this legislation I support
and that I believe the American people support. But problems remain.
Problems remain. The main problem to me is this guest worker concept
which is being widely abused by employers throughout this country. At
the very least, I want to see a summer jobs program for our kids who
are now losing jobs because of the J-1 program. But we need to do even
more than that.
I look forward to working with my colleagues who have worked so hard
on this bill to make it a bill that all Americans and all working
people can be supportive of.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in
morning business and engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South
Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S4468]]

Syria

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in a couple of minutes the President of
the United States will be announcing it is now conclusive that Bashar
al-Asad and the Syrian butchers have used chemical weapons, which is,
as we all know, a red line which the President of the United States
announced that Bashar al-Asad cannot cross.
Asad has been very clever in using small amounts rather than large
amounts. But the fact is we are not the first country to conclude the
Asad regime has used chemical weapons in their attacks on the
population of Syria.
The President also will announce we will be assisting the Syrian
rebels in Syria by providing them with weapons and other assistance. I
applaud the President's decision, 93,000 people dead later, over 1
million refugees, and the countries in the surrounding region erupting
into sectarian violence, the clear spreading of this conflict into a
regional conflict: Sunni, Shia, Saudi, Iran, Russia, all major players.
We see that Jordan is overwhelmed with refugees. Lebanon is
experiencing sectarian violence. Iraq is unraveling and the entire
region is bordering on chaos, not to mention the massacre and genocide
that is taking place in Syria.
I applaud the President's decision, and I appreciate it. The
President of the United States had better understand that just
supplying weapons is not going to change the equation on the ground of
the balance of power. These people, the Free Syrian Army, need weapons
and heavy weapons to counter tanks and aircraft. They need a no-fly air
zone. Bashar Asad's air assets have to be taken out and neutralized. We
can do that without risking a single American airplane. We can do it by
cratering the runways with cruise missiles, moving the PATRIOT missiles
closer to the border, and protecting a safe zone where they can
organize, they can work, and they can coordinate with the civilian side
of the Syrian National Army, and they can have a chance of success.
Today--thanks to Iranians, thanks to Russia, thanks to Hezbollah
pouring in by the thousands, thanks to people flowing in from all over
the Middle East--including from Iraq back into Syria--they are losing.
They are being massacred and they are sustaining incredibly heavy
casualties. It is terrible.
I applaud the President's decision. I applaud the fact that he has
now acknowledged what the French, the others, and all the rest of us
knew, that Bashar Asad is using chemical weapons.
Just to provide weapons to the Syrian National Army is not enough. We
have to change the equation on the battleground. If I might say, I have
seen and been in conflicts where there was gradual escalation. They
don't win. If all we are going to do is supply weapons, then there will
be a commensurate resupply by the Iranians, Russians, and others.
I thank the President for acknowledging the Syrians are using
chemical weapons and massacring their own people. I applaud his
decision to provide additional weapons.
Every ounce, every bone in my body knows that simply providing
weapons will not change the battlefield equation, and we must change
the battlefield equation; otherwise, we are going to see a regional
conflict, the consequences of which we will be paying for for a long
time.
I yield to my colleague from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. I wish to add my voice to the President's decision to
act, because I think action by the United States and the international
community is required.
What does it matter to the average American that we contain this war
in Syria and that it ends sooner rather than later? As to chemical
weapons that have now been acknowledged to be used by Asad against his
own people, my goal is to make sure they are not used against us,
Israel, or our allies throughout the world. If we don't stop this war,
the chemical weapons caches--numbers in the hundreds of thousands of
weapons--could be used to be deployed to kill thousands of Americans or
Israelis or people who are aligned with us.
The President's decision to intervene comes from an escalation of the
use of chemical weapons by Asad. As Senator McCain has indicated, the
threats to our country are not just from the chemical weapons but from
a regional deterioration.
I say to the sitting President of the Senate today, we were in
Jordan. The Jordanian Government has to accommodate over 550,000 Syrian
refugees. Sixty thousand Syrian children are attending Jordanian
schools. The economy in Jordan is about to collapse. If we lose the
King of Jordan, we have lost one of the last moderate voices in the
Middle East.
This war has a ripple effect. It is affecting Turkey; it is affecting
Iraq. Radical Islamists are flowing in on the Sunni side and Shia side.
There are al-Qaida elements that are filling in the vacuum because the
war has gone on so long. Now we have Hezbollah, a radical Islamic Shia
group. This is turning into a civil war within Syria and a regional
conflict.
To the President: Your decision today to get involved is welcome
news. But as Senator McCain said, Mr. President, the goal is to end the
war. The only way this war is going to end quickly and on our terms is
to neutralize the air assets Asad enjoys.
On the air power advantage he has over the rebels, we can crater the
runways. There are four air bases he uses. We can stop the planes from
flying. We can shoot planes down without having one boot on the ground.
That is not necessary.
As to Senator McCain's point, the longer this war goes on, the more
damage to our allies, and the more likely the chemical weapons can be
used not just against Syrians but against us and others. My biggest
fear about the war in Syria is the chemical weapons falling in the
hands of radical Islamists. They are closer today than they have ever
been in achieving that goal.
Mr. President, you made the right call today. We need to follow up to
end this war with neutralizing Asad's air power and having a no-fly
zone so the rebels can reorganize. When we supply arms to the rebels,
we will look long and hard at who to give the arms to.
The good news is we don't need to give them a bunch of anti-aircraft
capability if we crater the runways through the international community
using our assets. If we neutralize the air power by blowing up the
runways, you don't have to provide the rebels with a bunch of anti-
aircraft capability.
If we will provide a no-fly zone using PATRIOT missile batteries, you
can protect the people without interjecting massive weapons into the
conflict.
Senator McCain has been right about this for a couple of years. This
is a big day.
I will conclude with this. Asad is the reason the Russians are
providing him more weapons. The reason is Hezbollah is in Syria. The
reason the Iranians are so bold is he is clearly winning. It is not in
our national interests for him to win because the Israelis cannot allow
the technology being sold to Asad by the Russians being present,
because it will hurt their national security.
I hope with this intervention today to get involved, after chemical
weapons have been used, the tide of the battle will turn. If it doesn't
turn, it will have catastrophic results for national security and the
region as a whole.
The President chose wisely today to get involved. We support him. The
goal is not to help the rebels, the goal is to end the war before
chemical weapons can be used against us, we lose the King of Jordan,
and the entire Middle East goes up in flames.
Mr. McCAIN. May I ask my colleague if he remembers when the Secretary
of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff appeared
before our committee well over a year ago and said, unsolicited, it is
inevitable, it is inevitable that Bashar Asad will fall? Does the
Senator remember that?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
Mr. McCAIN. This is from our highest ranking official and from our
highest defense official, the Secretary of Defense.
At that time I said: What makes you so sure? How can you be so sure
with the help from Hezbollah, with the help from the Russians at the
time, the equipment and arms they are getting?
They said: Don't worry. The fall of Asad is inevitable.
Is there anybody today who believes he is going to fall? I don't
think so. Because the facts on the ground are he is

[[Page S4469]]

winning and the slaughter continues. The latest is 93,000 people have
been massacred. As the Senator from South Carolina indicated, there are
well over 1 million refugees overwhelming the neighboring countries.
It is my understanding the President has not made the final decision
on arming, but he has made the decision that chemical weapons are being
used. I think it is obvious they will be providing weapons. They need a
no-fly zone. I would say there are military officials in the Pentagon
who will say we can't do it, and we have to have total mobilization of
every single Reserve in the world and the United States, and it is so
hard.
We spend tens of billions of dollars a year on defense. If our
military can't establish a no-fly zone, then, by God, American taxpayer
dollars have been terribly wasted and we ought to have an investigation
as to why we can't handle a situation in a third-rate country. I
believe we can, I know we can. I know, because I talked to people, such
as the head of our Central Command, a former head of our Central
Command, our former head of NATO, and others, such as General Keane,
the architect of the surge. We can go in and establish a no-fly zone,
and we can change this equation on the battlefield.
Finally, I would ask my colleague, we understand the American people
are war weary. They are weary because of what happened in Iraq. We
remain in Afghanistan. Iraq is unraveling, by the way, but Americans
are weary. They are tired of reading the casualty lists, of the
funerals, and the terrible tragedies that have befallen American
families. That is why neither I nor the Senator from South Carolina is
saying we want boots on the ground. In fact, we don't want boots on the
ground. We know it would be counterproductive. We know it would not
lead to victory. We do know we can provide incredible assistance and
change this battlefield equation.
Finally, because a lot of Americans haven't paid perhaps as much
attention as some of us, and maybe because they are war weary, I think
it would be wise for the President of the United States to go on
national television to explain to the American people why we are
stopping this genocide, explain why we are assisting these people who
are struggling for the same things we stand for and believe in, why the
United States of America went to Bosnia with air power, not boots on
the ground, and why we went to Kosovo and didn't put boots on the
ground. Explain how we can help these people while alleviating the
unspeakable misery of the Syrian people.
Does my colleague from South Carolina agree with that?
Mr. GRAHAM. I would recommend the President educate the American
people about what is going on in the Middle East, because it is scary.
It is really scary.
The Iranians are marching toward a nuclear weapon. Israel is becoming
more surrounded by radical Islamic nations, not less. The King of
Jordan is teetering. If we lose him, God knows what is going to happen
in the Middle East.
I would suggest that the President take it one step further. Explain
to the American people what happens to us if these chemical weapons
Asad has used against his own people fall into the hands of radical
Islamists who want to do more than just take care of Syria. My big fear
is weapons of mass destruction are going to fall into the hands of
radical Islamists either in Iran or Syria if we don't act quickly.
The only reason thousands of Americans have been killed in the war on
terror--and not millions--is they can't get the weapons to kill
millions of us. If they could, they would.
I would argue very strongly it is in our national security interests
to make sure the war in Syria ends and Asad is displaced.
Senator McCain is right, he is winning. He was supposed to be gone
last year. He is never going to be displaced until the tide of battle
changes. The way we change the tide of battle is neutralize his air
power. We can do that without mobilizing every Reservist, including me.
It can be done, it should be done, and it is in our interests to do it.
One last thought. If we do not address the chemical weapons
compromise in Syria and end this war before these chemical weapons flow
out of Syria, not only will Israel be in the crosshairs of radical
Islamists with a weapons-of-mass-destruction capability, it is only a
matter of time before they come here. The next bomb that goes off in a
place like Boston could have more than nails and glass in it.
The people who want these weapons in Syria, trying to develop nuclear
capability in Iran, if we don't think they are coming after us, we are
naive. I know we are war weary, but I hope we are not too weary to
protect our children, grandchildren, and ourselves from a threat that
is real. I wish it would go away, but we don't make these things go
away by wishing, we confront them. The sooner we confront it, the
better off we will be.
Mr. McCAIN. I would mention one other thing, as I know one of my
colleagues is waiting on the floor. There is no other experience that I
think anyone can have to see the terrible ravage of war than to go to a
refugee camp. The Senator from South Carolina and I have been to
refugee camps on both the Turkish and the Jordanian border to see
thousands of people living in terribly primitive conditions; to see, as
I did in one camp we visited--there had been a rainstorm the night
before and people were literally living in water--the desperation on
the faces of the people and the children.
I have had many moving experiences while visiting these refugee
camps, but I also think there is an aspect we ought to understand and
appreciate as Americans. They are angry and they are bitter because we
wouldn't come to their assistance.
I will never forget a woman who was a schoolteacher escorting me
around the refugee camp. She said: Senator McCain, do you see all these
children here? Do you see all these children?
She said: These children are going to take revenge on those who
refused to help them stop this slaughter by Bashar Asad.
So there are long-term implications both on the humanitarian side as
well as other aspects of this issue. Believe me, it is the greatest
blow to Iran in 25 years if Bashar Asad fell. So it is not just a
humanitarian issue. If Bashar Asad goes, Hezbollah is disconnected from
Iran, and the whole equation in the Middle East dramatically changes.
If Iran and Bashar Asad succeed, we will see a direct threat of the
State of Israel, which the Israelis understand, coming from the Golan
Heights.
So this is not only a humanitarian issue, it is a national security
issue. If Iran succeeds, keeping Bashar Asad in power, that will send a
message throughout the Middle East about Iranian power, Iranian
ability, and the Iranian ability to change governments throughout the
Middle East. So there is a lot at stake.
I hope the President will go to a no-fly zone and give these people
the weapons with which to defend themselves, as Russian arms and
Iranian arms pour into the country on the side of Bashar Asad. My
friends, it is not a fair fight, and we know, in that kind of climate
and terrain, air power is the deciding factor.
I thank my colleague from South Carolina, and I appreciate the
patience of the Senator from Texas.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cowan). The Senator from Texas.

Iran Election

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, on Friday, the people of Iran head to the
polls to make a false choice. Ostensibly participating in a democratic
process to select a new President, they are really affirming their
existing extremist theocracy. They will be forced to select not the
candidate of their choice but the candidates that have been chosen for
them by the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei--candidates guaranteed to
continue the Supreme Leader's policies of political and religious
oppression in pursuit of nuclear capability at all costs.
In the United States we are now engaged in a national dialog about
how we can best preserve our God-given rights guaranteed to us by our
Constitution. We are taking a serious look at the role of government in
our lives and revisiting the balance government is striking between
security and privacy. But even as we debate these vital issues at home,
we should remember those who are denied their liberty in Iran.

[[Page S4470]]

Today, in Iran, the economic picture is grim. Forty percent of
Iranian citizens now live below the poverty line, almost double the
rate in 2005. The rial has lost 50 percent of its value. The official
rate of inflation is 32.2 percent. The real rate is considerably
higher. The national rate of unemployment is 11.2 percent, and it is as
high as 20 percent in certain regions.
Basic freedoms--political, religious, speech, the Internet--are under
systematic attack by the regime. Sadly, persecution and oppression are
the norm in Iran. Iran's political opposition has been effectively
silenced. Key 2009 opposition leaders, such as Mir Hossein Mousavi and
Mehdi Karroubi have been imprisoned without charge in their own homes
for 2 years with locked doors and windows. The list of Presidential
candidates has been hand-selected by the Supreme Leader, not by the
Iranian people. American-Iranian Pastor Saeed Abedini is right now
serving an 8-year sentence in Iran's brutal Evin prison for simply
professing his faith.
In January, I was proud to sign a letter, along with 11 other
Senators, to Secretary Clinton advocating for Pastor Abedini's release
and to Secretary Kerry on February 12, thanking him for his statement
in support of Pastor Abedini.
There has been a crackdown on Christians in the lead-up to this
election, including the closing of the Central Assemblies of God Church
in Tehran and the detention of Pastor Robert Asserian. Iranian Pastor
Behnam Irani may face the death penalty for organizing a 300-strong
congregation of the Church of Iran. Iran's 100,000-plus Evangelical
Christians are suffering brutal oppression right now.
In an imitation of China, Iran is attempting to create a sort of
internal Internet that will block access to international news and
social media. Since the 2009 uprising, the Supreme Leader has
instituted four new entities to restrict Internet freedom: The Supreme
Council on Cyberspace, the Committee Charged with Determining Offensive
Content, the Cyber Police, and the Cyber Army.
Iran has continued to aggressively expand its influence in the region
and beyond. Iran remains a leading state sponsor of terrorism and is
increasing its activity. Iran has been so hostile toward the nation of
Israel that Prime Minister Netanyahu recently expressed fears of
``another Holocaust'' from Tehran, regardless of any election that may
take place. Iran's proxy army, Hezbollah, is supporting Asad's
murderous attacks on his own people in Syria.
Today, the United Nations estimated that 93,000 people have been
slaughtered in Syria since the uprising began in 2011. Iran's
fingerprints are on those murders. Iran is not only expanding its own
influence in the region through closer ties with the Muslim Brotherhood
in Egypt, but it is also expanding its influence in Latin America. Most
troubling, Iran is proceeding undeterred in its pursuit of nuclear
weapons capability.
In my judgment, there is no greater threat to the national security
of the United States than the prospect of a nuclear Iran, and we need
to be unequivocal and speak with absolute clarity that the United
States will do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons capability.
Unfortunately, the message from the United States has at times seemed
muddled. On the one hand, Secretary of State John Kerry has asked
Congress to relax sanctions around the Iranian Presidential elections
so his diplomatic efforts have a ``window'' to work. On the other hand,
the Obama administration recently announced new sanctions on Iran's
currency and a new initiative to get communications devices to the
Iranian people. But both efforts, however well intentioned, came too
late to have any real impact on this election.
Today, the Senate is taking encouraging action. I am pleased the
Senate hopes to pass a resolution, S. Res. 154, reaffirming our call
for free and fair elections, a resolution I fully support.
The resolution also condemns the widespread human rights violations
of the Government of Iran, calls on the Government of Iran to respect
its peoples' freedom of expression and association, and expresses our
ongoing support to the people of Iran for their calls for a democratic
government that upholds freedom, civil liberties, and the rule of law.
The Iranian people may well be confused about where the United States
stands, especially after we stood silently by when they took to the
streets 4 years ago during the Green Revolution. But it was not always
this way. Twenty-six years ago this week, President Ronald Reagan stood
in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin and challenged Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the wall that divided the eastern and
western halves of the city. No more important words have been spoken by
a leader in modern times.
Today, I ask all Americans to join me in likewise urging the regime
in Iran to tear down the walls of political and religious persecution,
to relieve the pain of the unnecessary economic hardship, and to
renounce the isolation caused by Tehran's aggressive and belligerent
policies.
To those right now imprisoned and being persecuted in Iran, I would
repeat the words of encouragement President Reagan gave when he knew
the tyranny represented by the Berlin Wall would not stand. As
President Reagan observed: ``For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot
withstand truth; it cannot withstand freedom.'' That is the very same
message we should convey to the people of Iran as they suffer under
tyrannical theocracy.
To the Supreme Leader I would say: Stop oppressing your people. Stop
persecuting Christians. Stop pursuing nuclear weapons capability. Stop
stifling freedom of speech and allow real and free elections. Free the
Iranian people.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Defense Contracting

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the power of the free
enterprise system. It is one of the reasons for America's greatness. I
know from experience that private businesses do some things better than
the government ever could. But over the last couple of decades, the
United States has increasingly relied on private contractors to do the
work the men and women in our Armed Forces used to do, and they are
getting exorbitant salaries to do the same work--in some cases, almost
twice the salary of the President of the United States.
To the people of West Virginia and to me it doesn't make any sense to
pay a defense contractor up to $763,000 a year. That is almost twice as
much as our Commander in Chief and almost four times as much as our
Secretary of Defense. If we do nothing about this, this figure will
automatically rise to $951,000 next year--$951,000. That is almost $1
million a year right in the middle of sequestration when we are cutting
everything.
With the war in Afghanistan winding down, it is only natural for
defense contractors to be looking for new opportunities, and the
southern border of our country is one of the places they are eyeing. In
fact, the New York Times says some of them are getting ready to
demonstrate military grade and long-range camera systems this summer in
an effort to secure billion-dollar contracts with Homeland Security.
I understand we need the expertise of a private industry to secure
our borders, but taxpayers should not be responsible for the exorbitant
salaries these contractors are demanding. So I am offering an amendment
that would cap compensation for private contractors employed for border
security. The cap would be $230,700 annually, which is the most a
government civilian can be paid in a given year. So it is in line with
what we are doing.
That is significantly more than we pay Defense Secretary Hagel or our
Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano.
There is nothing in my amendment that would prevent contractors from
making more than $230,000. We are not saying they can't make more than
that. We are saying they can't pass that through to the taxpayers of
America. They have to pay it out of the profits of their company. The
only thing I

[[Page S4471]]

am preventing is the taxpayers from having to foot the bill.
I have heard some proposals to bring that figure down to $487,000.
That is an improvement. But, frankly, I can't look West Virginians in
the eye, and I am sure the Chair would have a hard time looking his
constituents in Massachusetts in the eye, and justify paying government
contractors that much money because it is just hard to justify. It
can't be justified.
We need to get our fiscal house in order. We can't do that if we
allow private contractors to charge the taxpayers exorbitant salaries
of almost $1 million. It is time for commonsense controls on
contractors' salaries. So I am asking for the support of this amendment
when it comes to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to share
some remarks, and I appreciate the eloquence of my friend and colleague
from West Virginia on the issue he just mentioned.
The committee did reduce almost by half the amount that contractors
could bill, and we may see further changes in that issue. But when we
are talking about money, real money, there is a problem we have with
the bill that came out of committee. It is such a grim, serious matter
that we have to talk about it, we have to be up front about it, and
nobody can be confused about it.
I was pleased with Chairman Levin. He is a wonderful chairman of our
committee. We have consistently had bipartisan votes. I wanted it to be
a bipartisan vote for the bill and voted for it today, but I am not
sure that was the right vote because I said during the committee that
we have a serious problem in the amount of money that was appropriated
for the bill, $52 billion over the current law.
There is a hope and belief that we can fix that gap between now and
the time it comes to the floor. Secretary Hagel was before the Budget
Committee yesterday. I am the ranking Republican on the Budget
Committee. He indicated he is working on a plan to help us be within
the law. He also indicated that to Chairman Levin and Ranking Member
Inhofe on the Armed Services Committee. But let's be sure what the
situation is.
August 2011 we had run up huge debt. We had hit our debt ceiling
again. The administration and the President wanted to raise the debt
ceiling $2.1 trillion, one of the largest--or maybe the largest--raise
of the debt ceiling in history. That was supposed to take us 2 or 3
years.
Well, we have already hit that debt ceiling again now it appears.
Soon we will be having to pass legislation. All the little extensions
and maneuvering to extend the debt ceiling a little longer are being
exercised, and we will soon have to vote again to raise the debt
ceiling.
But in August of 2011, after much intensity of effort, legislation
passed. I opposed it. One of my biggest concerns was what it was doing
to the defense budget. But the bill passed. It set up a committee, and
the committee was to deal with future cuts and long-term entitlement
programs and other programs. That was their goal. They were given that
challenge.
Fundamentally, the bill that passed raised the debt ceiling $2.1
trillion, but it reduced the growth of spending over the next 10 years
by $2.1 trillion. Unfortunately, those reductions in the growth of
spending fell disproportionately on the Defense Department. I will
mention that in a minute.
But the agreement was clear. There were no tax increases. There were
no other gimmicks to it other than the spending level would be reduced
over 10 years by $2.1 trillion. We were then spending at the level of
$3.7 trillion a year, which would mean $37 trillion over 10 years. We
were on track to spend $47 trillion over 10 years--a substantial
increase from the current level. So the agreement was that it would
reduce the growth to $45 trillion instead of $47 trillion.
There was a hope that the committee would reach an even more historic
agreement in which entitlements--Social Security and Medicare--would be
put on a firm foundation, and we would get the country on the right
track.
The committee failed. They did not reach an agreement. So in law
there remains the BCA, and within the Budget Control Act there was the
sequester, and the sequester would take another $500 billion. The BCA
took about $500 billion out of the defense budget, and the sequester
part of the BCA took another. When the committee didn't reach an
agreement, that was another $500 billion to be taken out of the Defense
Department, $1 trillion.
The Defense Department represents one-sixth of the Federal budget,
almost $1 trillion out of the defense, one-sixth of the government.
That is one-half of the cuts that were to be taken from our entire
government.
When we look at the numbers over 10 years, the defense budget
adjusted for inflation would take a 14-percent reduction in its
funding, whereas the remaining five-sixths of the Federal Government
would have a 44-percent increase in its funding.
This is the kind of malapportionment of belt tightening that ought
not to happen. So I thought--and I believe the American people
thought--that we should get together with the President and see how we
can avoid this problem and spread the cuts out through other agencies
and departments, many of which had no reductions whatsoever. Of course,
Social Security had no reduction whatsoever. Medicaid--one of the
fastest growing programs of all--had zero reduction in spending under
sequester. Food stamps had gone from $20 billion to $80 billion,
increased fourfold in 12 years, and got zero cuts. A lot of other
programs got zero cuts; whereas, the Defense Department was getting
hammered.
People think, well, the war is coming down and the Defense Department
can handle it. No, that is not the way it works. The war costs are
entirely separate. This is a reduction of the base defense budget,
where we pay our soldiers, pay our electric bills, maintain our
aircraft, our ships, our ports, and our bases around the world. That is
what is being cut, the fundamental strength of the military, and it is
too much.
Can they survive it? Not without doing some damage. Sure, they will
survive it, and they will be able to get by. But what ought to be done
is we ought to get together with the Commander in Chief of the U.S.
military, work with the Secretary of Defense, former-Senator Chuck
Hagel, get together and figure out a way to have some other parts of
this government take some of the reductions in spending that have
fallen disproportionately on the Defense Department. It is just that
simple.
I suggested to Secretary Hagel yesterday at the Budget Committee
that, yes, he ought to be talking with Congress; yes, we have
eventually the power of the purse; but nothing is going to happen in
the Senate that President Obama doesn't agree to. Senator Reid is not
going to support anything President Obama doesn't agree to. It looks to
me like the Members of the Democratic caucus are going to stick
together on this issue. They have so far. Months have gone by and
sequester hasn't been fixed.
So I said: I assume, Mr. Secretary, you have the phone number to 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue. I think you had better call over there to the
Commander in Chief of the U.S. military, who has an obligation to the
men and women he is deploying all over the world and sending into
harm's way, and who has an obligation to maintain the strength of our
military.
Yes, it can be more efficient. It has already taken $500 billion in
cuts, and it may take a little more. But these cuts are more than can
be easily assimilated.
I just believe this has drifted to a point where we are in a serious
predicament. The military has already had to lay off civilian workers
of the U.S. Government for 11 days, furloughed without pay, and done
other things to try to stay within the financial constraints they are
now under because the cuts are beginning to bite.
So that is the situation. I want to say to my colleagues, I do not
believe the Defense bill that came out of committee--and we had a nice
discussion today on multiple issues that are important to America's
defense, and we had a good collegial feeling. I don't believe that bill
should pass the Senate--I don't believe it will pass the Senate--if it
violates the spending limits we voted on just 2 years ago.

[[Page S4472]]

Just think of it. We agreed to reduce the growth of spending from $37
billion now at that rate 2 years ago. We were going to let it grow to
47, we reduced the growth to 45, and we come back to the American
people and say we can't effect that now? We can't reduce the growth and
spending just that little bit? We promised you that we would raise the
debt ceiling, but I know it made you angry, American people. You were
mad at us because we mismanaged your money. But we promise, we will
reduce the growth of spending by $2.1 trillion. Trust us. We will do
it.
And here we are. President Obama, 6 months later, produced a budget
that wiped out all those cuts and increased taxes, taxes and spending.
This has been the pattern we have been in. I have to say, we do not
need to have this happen.
So I am prepared to meet with the President. I am prepared to meet
with the Secretary of Defense, the Office of Management and Budget, and
talk about where we can find other reductions in spending and reduce
some of the reductions on the Defense Department. We need to reduce a
good many of those, frankly. Then the Defense Department can phase in
some reductions in spending over the outyears. They can do that. But
too much too fast is destabilizing. No business would do that. So we
have to figure out a way to make this system work.
I was pleased to work with Senator Levin and Senator Inhofe today. I
want to be cooperative and be positive in our efforts. I like much of
what we did with the authorization bill in the Armed Services
Committee, but we just didn't talk about the elephant in the room; that
is, the sequester, the real danger we have there. We are going to have
to discuss it now. It will be part of the floor discussion and debate
if it is not fixed.
It can be fixed. I think we are all prepared to work for it. I don't
believe this country will sink into the ocean. I don't believe this
country is going to have to close its ports. I don't believe this
country is going to have to end tours at the White House to reduce the
growth of spending by $2 trillion, from $47 trillion to $45 trillion
over the next 10 years. I don't believe that is going to bankrupt us.
But we ought to do it in a smart way. We should have every agency and
department of government tighten their belts, not just some.
We slipped into this when the sequester was written to try to effect
some political result that didn't occur, and now, as a responsible
Senate, we have to consider what is right for America. The right thing
is to have all agencies and departments tighten their belts and reduce
the pressure that is now falling on our Defense Department.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________