[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 26, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S835-S847]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 SYRIA

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I have the honor of being the chair of 
the U.S. Helsinki Commission representing this body. This is a 
commission which was established in 1975 in order to implement the U.S. 
responsibilities in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in 
Europe. Its membership includes all the countries of Europe, as well as 
the former Republics of the Soviet Union, Canada, and the United 
States.
  The main principles of Helsinki are we are interested in each other's 
security. In order to have a secure nation, you need to have a nation 
that respects the human rights of its citizens, which provides economic 
opportunity for its citizens, as well as the defense of their borders. 
We also have partners for cooperation, particularly in the 
Mediterranean area, that used the Helsinki principles in order to try 
to advance security in their region.
  During this past recess, I took the opportunity to visit that region 
on behalf of the U.S. Helsinki Commission. I was joined by several of 
our colleagues looking at the current security issues. Our first visit 
was to Israel, and our main focus, quite frankly, was on Syria--what is 
happening today in Syria.
  In Israel, we had a chance to meet with the Israeli officials, and it 
was interesting as to how many brought up the concerns about Syria. 
They were concerned about Syria's impact on Israel's neighbors and what 
was going to happen as far as security in that region.
  While we were there, there was an episode on the Syrian-Israeli 
border, and the Israelis provided health care to those who were 
injured, providing humanitarian assistance. We thank the Israelis for 
providing that humanitarian assistance.
  It was interesting that the Israeli officials pointed out the concern 
about the refugees who are leaving Syria going into neighboring 
countries. We know the vast numbers. There are almost 1 million Syrians 
who have left Syria for other countries because of the humanitarian 
concerns. About one-quarter of a million have gone to Jordan, about 
280,000 are in Lebanon, about 281,000 in Turkey, another 90,000 in 
Iraq, and 16,000 in Egypt.
  Israel is concerned about the security of its neighbors and concerned 
about how Jordan is dealing with the problems of the Syrian refugees, 
how Lebanon is handling them. We note the concerns about Hezbollah 
operations in Lebanon and how that is being handled with the Syrian 
refugee issue.
  We had a chance to travel to Turkey when we left Israel. We met first 
with the Turkish officials in Ankara, and we received their account as 
to what was happening in Syria and what Turkey was doing about it. We 
then had a chance to visit the border area between Turkey and Syria.
  We visited a refugee camp named Kilis, where there has been about 
18,000 Syrian refugees. We also had a chance to meet with the 
opposition leaders who were in that camp, as well as later when we were 
in Istanbul meeting with the opposition leaders from Syria.
  I mention that all because the humanitarian crisis is continuing in 
the country of Syria. The Assad regime is turning on its own people. 
Over 70,000 have been killed since the Arab Spring started in Syria. 
While we were there, the Assad regime used scud missiles against its 
own people, again killing Syrians and killing a lot of innocent people 
in the process. This is a humanitarian disaster.
  I wish to mention one bright spot, if I might. We had a chance to 
visit the camps, I said, in Kilis, on the border of Syria and Turkey, 
in Turkey. We had a chance to see firsthand how the Syrian refugees are 
being handled by the Turkish Government. I want to tell you, they are 
doing a superb job. I think it is a model way to handle a situation 
such as this. They have an open border.
  The border area at that point is controlled by the Syrian freedom 
fighters. They control that area. The Turks allowed the Syrians to come 
in and find a safe haven. The Turkish Government has built housing for 
the refugees in the camp. We had a chance to see their children in 
schools. They are attending schools. They are getting proper food and 
proper medical attention. They have the opportunity to travel where 
they want in Turkey, freedom of movement. They have the opportunity to 
go back to Syria if they want to go back to Syria. The Turkish 
authorities are providing them with a safe haven and adequate help. 
They are doing this primarily with their own resources.
  There is one other thing we observed when we were in this camp on the 
border. We had a chance to meet with the elected representatives of the 
refugees in Kilis. They actually had an election. They don't have that 
opportunity in Syria. They are learning how to cast their votes. They 
are learning what democracy is about. They are learning what 
representation is about. We had a chance to talk to these 
representatives about the circumstances in Syria and what we could do 
to help.
  First, I want to point out there is still a tremendous need for the 
international community to contribute to the humanitarian needs of 
those who are affected in Syria. There are approximately 4 million 
Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance. There are 2\1/2\ million 
internally displaced people within Syria. The United States has taken 
the lead as far as humanitarian aid, having provided $384 million. 
Other countries have stepped up but, quite frankly, more needs to be 
done.
  In talking with the opposition leaders--and we had a chance to talk 
to them in depth when we were in Istanbul--they expressed to us a sense 
of frustration that there hasn't been a better, more unified 
international response to the actions of the Assad regime--to what the 
Assad regime has

[[Page S836]]

done to its own people--and to get Assad out of Syria. Quite frankly, 
they understand--or, as we explained--some countries might be willing 
to provide a certain type of help; other countries may not. The United 
States has provided nonlethal help, other countries are providing 
weapons, still other countries training. But we need to coordinate 
that. The absence of coordination provides a void in which extreme 
elements are more likely to get into the opposition, and that is 
something we all want to make sure doesn't happen.
  The message I took back from those meetings is that the United States 
needs to be in the lead in coordinating the efforts of the opposition. 
We made it clear, and I think the international community has made it 
clear, that Assad must go, and he should go to The Hague and be held 
accountable for his war crimes. He has no legitimacy to remain in power 
in Syria. That has been made clear and we underscored that point again. 
We also underscored the point there is no justification for any 
country--any country--providing assistance to the Assad regime on the 
military side. As we know, Russia and Iran have provided help. That is 
wrong. That is only adding to the problems and giving strength to a 
person who has turned on his own people. But then we also need to 
coordinate our attentions so we can provide the help they need and the 
confidence they are looking for so they will have the necessary 
training not only to reclaim their country but then to rule their 
country in a democratic way that respects the rights of all of its 
citizens.
  As the Chair of the Helsinki Commission, I pointed that out to the 
Syrian opposition, that we want to provide the help so they can rule 
their country one day--we hope sooner rather than later--in a way that 
respects the rights of all of its citizens and provides economic 
opportunity for its citizens, for that is the only way they will have a 
nation that respects the security of its country.
  That was the message we delivered, and I hope the United States will 
join other countries in a more concerted effort to get Assad out of 
Syria. As I said, I think he should be at The Hague and held 
accountable for his war crimes and held accountable for not allowing 
the people of Syria to have a democratic regime.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                      Tenth Anniversary of PEPFAR

  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I rise today, in this year of 2013, on 
the tenth anniversary of the State of the Union Address given by 
President George W. Bush when he introduced a program known as PEPFAR--
the President's Emergency Program for AIDS Relief--a program that has 
had remarkable success in the last decade.
  A lot of that success has taken place on the continent of Africa, 
where I just returned from my seventh trip in the last decade. This was 
a trip where remarkable things were observed happening all over the 
continent in terms of AIDS infection being reduced, mother-to-child 
transmission being in fact eliminated in many cases, and seeing that 
the biggest challenge today for those who fall victim to AIDS is not 
that they will die soon but that they will have the continuum of care 
necessary to see to it they live a normal lifestyle with the 
antiretrovirals provided by PEPFAR.
  It is important that the American taxpayers, the American people, 
those of us in Congress recognize what has been achieved in the last 
decade, for our taxpayers have invested billions of dollars on the 
continent of Africa to begin the process of trying to eliminate AIDS. 
We cannot yet declare victory, but we can declare great victories in 
battles along the way, and we are making more and more of them along 
the way. Males are getting tested, females are getting tested, as they 
should, and mothers are getting the care they need with antiretrovirals 
during their pregnancies to prevent the transmission to their babies, 
and we are seeing a continuation of the progress of the great program 
started 10 years ago by this Congress, by President Bush, and by the 
American people.
  We are beginning to send the message, and we need to let the African 
countries know, that we will be scaling down our investment and raising 
their participation at the government level. It is important to see to 
it that PEPFAR remains a viable program. In our visit of the past 7, 8, 
now 9 days, I guess it was, we visited the Congo, we visited Mali, 
Senegal, Morocco, and we visited South Africa. In each and every 
country they are beginning the process of having more and more of their 
health professionals taking more and more of the responsibility of 
caring for people, testing people, and distributing the 
antiretrovirals, which lessens the pressure on the budget of the United 
States of America. But I think it is important to recognize that a 
disease we feared was going to take much of the population of that 
continent--and ours, for that matter--10 years ago is now a disease 
that is being managed and being reduced, and over time, we hope, we 
will have a generation free of HIV/AIDS not only in America but around 
the world.
  There is a troubling event happening on the continent of Africa and 
in Asia, and that is there are those who are taking the volunteers who 
come from our country and other organizations and actually stopping 
them from giving inoculations and vaccinations to the people. Pakistan, 
Afghanistan, and Nigeria are the last three countries on Earth where 
polio still exists. A few weeks ago, in the Congo, in Nigeria, nine 
workers were killed trying to give vaccinations to children in Nigeria 
because Islamic leaders in those countries had tried to tell them that 
in order to reduce the Arab population American donations of polio 
vaccine would in fact cause them to be impotent when they grew up. That 
is the farthest thing from the truth, but it is a wives' tale being 
told to eliminate or keep vaccinations from getting to the people who 
need them. In the country of Pakistan, since December 12, there have 
been five attacks on workers distributing vaccines trying to eliminate 
polio in Pakistan.
  So as we celebrate the victories in terms of HIV/AIDS, polio, 
malaria, and other diseases, we have to also recognize there is still 
ignorance in some parts of the world that is prohibiting people who 
will ultimately get sick and die from getting the vaccines necessary to 
keep from contracting these difficult diseases. So I come to the floor 
today to recognize the great achievement of the American people in the 
war against AIDS on the continent of Africa, and the creation of PEPFAR 
by George W. Bush, but also to send out a warning to those trying to 
prohibit the vaccinations and the antiretrovirals from getting to the 
people who need them in Nigeria, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Because one 
day we want a generation free of HIV/AIDS and disease not just on the 
continent of North America or the continent of Africa but around the 
world.
  It is a tribute to the American medical community, the researchers 
and developers, the American people, and this Congress that the war on 
AIDS is still being engaged, and we are declaring victory after victory 
on the battlefield. One day we hope we will have a generation free of 
AIDS not just in America but around the world.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, what is the pending business before 
the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the Hagel 
nomination.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak 
as if in morning business for approximately 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland.


                             Sequestration

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I was so excited when I came in because 
I have a new desk in the Senate. With seniority, I have now moved to 
the row where giants in our institution once stood. This is the 
particular seat which just a few weeks ago was held by John Kerry.

[[Page S837]]

  Although my desk location is new, I come to the floor with what seems 
to be a persistent pattern in the Senate and in the Congress, which is 
that when faced with big problems that affect the fate of the Nation, 
let's delay, let's blame, and let's not get to the work the American 
people elected us to do.
  I rise today to speak about sequester--something that was never, ever 
meant to happen. It came out of the dark days of the debt ceiling 
debacle in the summer of 2011 when we were facing a downgrade of the 
U.S. economy and a dysfunction of the Congress. In order to get us to 
the table, we came up with an agreement to have a supercommittee that 
would meet on both sides of the dome to come up with how we could begin 
to solve the serious fiscal issues facing the United States of America.
  There was an insistence, yes, by one side of the aisle that we have a 
trigger. And, yes, the President looked back on history.
  What we have now is a situation where we said what we would propose 
as a trigger if we didn't get our act together, which we have not. We 
would put into place something so serious, so Draconian, so 
unthinkable, so unworkable that we would solve the problems through 
regular order and find that sensible center Colin Powell has so often 
talked about. Well, the supercommittee collapsed--not because there 
weren't the great efforts of people such as Senators Murray and Durbin 
and Members over at the House, such as Maryland's very own Chris Van 
Hollen.
  Then we were faced with New Year's Eve. We had put it off to New 
Year's Eve and after the election, and here we were--while people were 
wearing funny hats all over America, we were doing funny things. And 
what did we do again? We put off sequester for 2 months--again not 
solving the problem.
  Well, now we have a rendezvous. On March 1, sequester will happen.
  I am opposed to sequester. I think it is bad policy for our country. 
It will hurt our economy. It will exacerbate the fragile job situation 
we have. It will affect not only government employees but those who 
work in private sector jobs because of the Federal Government.
  I support what was originally intended: a balanced approach that 
would look at increased revenues--particularly plugging up tax 
loopholes, particularly getting rid of tax-break earmarks--along with 
strategic cuts in spending and a review of mandatory spending to see 
how else we could get more value for our dollar.
  I am going to speak tomorrow about the impact on science, technology, 
innovation, and jobs. Today I want to speak about my own beloved State 
of Maryland and the people who work there.
  Maryland is home not only to the Super Bowl champions but to Nobel 
Prize winners and also people who work every day to help create the 
jobs today and the jobs tomorrow.
  I have the honor of representing 130,000 Federal employees.
  They say: Wow, how many of them can we get rid of?
  Well, why would we want to get rid of the people who work at the 
Social Security Administration? These are the people who calculate the 
eligibility for the benefits in regular Social Security and in 
disability.
  Why would we want to get rid of anybody who works for the Food and 
Drug Administration, people who every day are analyzing clinical trials 
to see if they can be moved to pharmaceutical or biotech or medical 
device production, ensuring that when they come out into clinical 
practice, they are safe, they have efficacy, they can be taken by the 
American people, and we can export them around the world? Why would we 
want to get rid of anybody at FDA who is helping make sure our drug 
supply is safe?

  How about the food inspectors? Right now, one of the turbo engines of 
my Eastern Shore economy is seafood production and poultry production. 
You can't have poultry production unless you have food inspectors. When 
we start laying off or furloughing food inspectors, it is going to 
affect those private sector jobs. If you don't have an inspector, you 
are not going to be able to have those companies working with the same 
level of production.
  Hundreds of thousands more work because of the Federal Government, 
iconic contractors, particularly in defense and also at NASA Goddard, 
which is our space science center. Yes, there are 3,000 civil servants, 
but there are also thousands of contractors. And what are they facing? 
Layoffs, furloughs, pay cuts, and lousy morale. What are they worried 
about? Their future. And they wonder whether they should give us 
another future. Make no mistake; we are not only going to hurt our 
economy, but there is an anti-incumbent fever developing around the 
country.
  Now, as we look at solving the problems, there are those who want to 
protect lavish tax breaks or tax earmarks for a few. I want to stand up 
here for the many, not only the people who are multimillionaires or 
billionaires who can take a tax deduction on their corporate jets. I am 
for the people who are working every day right now to find a cure for 
Alzheimer's, to find a cure for autism, to find a cure for AIDS, to 
find help a cure for the arthritic, and most recently not only what is 
done by government but even what is done in private institutions. 
Within the last few weeks at Johns Hopkins University, under Federal 
help from the Veterans' Administration, on an American war veteran from 
Iraq who had lost both arms, Hopkins was able to perform surgery that 
did the first successful arm transplant. Doesn't that bring tears? That 
happened because of the genius of the Hopkins personnel, with financial 
help from the VA to do the kind of research to make sure that not only 
the surgery was a success but also that the autoimmune suppression was 
also.
  This is what the American people want us to do to not only help that 
veteran, but what we learn through the VA will also then move into 
civilian clinical practice.
  We have to come up with a solution where government is doing the job 
to help the American people with compelling human needs or America is 
doing the job that enables other people to keep their jobs or protect 
their livelihoods--for example, weather. People watch the Weather 
Channel and say: Isn't that Cantore great? I love Cantore. We even 
tweet each other from time to time. But Jim Cantore and the Weather 
Channel get a lot of their information from the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration. That is the agency in Maryland that runs 
the weather forecast for all of America, predicting hurricanes, 
tornadoes, and it also ties up with the global weather prediction 
system that protects our ships at sea--civilian, cargo, military--as 
well as whether airlines can fly or not.
  When we look at our legislation we have to know that there are real 
consequences to those employees. The numbers sound like a lot, but 
their contribution to saving lives and saving livelihoods is enormous.
  Then we look at compelling human need. Do the American people really 
want to protect people not paying taxes on their second million over 
Head Start? If the sequester goes into effect, we are going to have a 
terrible effect on special education. Special education teachers would 
be affected, and it would be an across-the-board cut in education. The 
same with title I. Maryland would lose over $14 million.
  Federal law enforcement is something I know you are very keenly 
interested in, Mr. President. If the sequester goes into effect, it is 
going to affect over 1,000 Federal agents--at the FBI, at the Drug 
Enforcement Agency, at the Marshals Service. We don't know much about 
our Marshals Service. They are so quiet and efficient. Do you know what 
they do? They protect our judges at the Federal courthouses. You 
remember some got shot or wounded. It also serves warrants for runaway 
fugitives, and it also enforces the law on sexual predators in our 
country. Do we really want to furlough these men and women? I don't 
think so.
  Then there is the FBI. The FBI is crucial not only in mortgage fraud, 
financial fraud, but now the world of cyber. Do you know, last year in 
America there were 300 bank robberies? That is a terrible number if you 
are one of those banks. But there were thousands of attacks by cyber on 
our American financial institutions, of which the FBI was prime time. 
Do we really want to lay them off? No, I don't think so.

[[Page S838]]

  There is another issue of safety, and that goes to aviation safety. I 
am deeply concerned about the cut in air traffic control with 
furloughs, layoffs, or asking even fewer to work longer hours. We 
cannot have it.
  When we think about law enforcement, it also cuts Border Patrol. I am 
for comprehensive immigration reform, but I am also for protecting 
American borders. We now have 57,000 border control agents, a 
surprising number. If the sequester goes in, we could be forced to lay 
off or furlough 5,000 of them. Do you know what a furlough is? It says 
to someone who is going to be out there in the desert facing those who 
engage in the illegal traffic of people, guns, or drugs: While you are 
out there in that hot Sun, you are in harm's way, putting your life in 
danger, we are going to ask you only to work 4 days a week, and we are 
going to furlough you one-fifth of the time. To that border control 
agent being furloughed, that is a 20-percent cut.
  I will say this: If the Federal employees are going to take a 20-
percent cut and be furloughed, we should take a 20-percent cut. I think 
I should be treated like my Social Security employees, like my NIH 
employees working for cures, like FDA, the food inspectors, the people 
inspecting cargo coming into the Port of Baltimore or looking for 
illegal cargo coming into our airports. If they take a hit we should 
take a hit, and I look forward to moving on that legislation.
  I hope we do not get to that point--not for me to protect my pay, but 
to protect their future; to say, America, we believe in what you are 
doing, and we want to protect you so you can do your job for America 
instead of protecting all these breaks for billionaires.
  People can say: Didn't we do the tax break thing New Year's Eve with 
Biden and McConnell? Yes. It was a nonpayment, but there are lots and 
lots of very juicy loopholes or tax breaks--tax breaks for sending jobs 
overseas, tax breaks for reductions on corporate jets.
  Do we need those? Those are really earmarks. A tax earmark goes to 
people in a particular class, and it lasts indefinitely. While we are 
waiting for comprehensive tax reform, let's go after some of these and 
come up with a balanced approach for revenue.
  Mr. President, I know you were a Governor so you know about bond 
ratings. In my State of Maryland and my large counties, they are going 
to be affected by sequester because as the Federal Government goes, 
Moody's rates our bond rating. Maryland could lose millions of dollars 
and have to pay high interest rates on bonds.
  This is going to have a terrible impact, particularly in the area of 
school construction. It will cost hundreds if not thousands of jobs in 
not building schools we need or roads that need repair or water systems 
that need to be upgraded.
  People say: Oh, well, that is government. That is the way it is. Mr. 
President, I want you to realize if in fact people begin to lose their 
jobs or get furloughed and lose a big part of their income, they are 
not going to be spending money in the local economy, the real economy. 
It also means they will not be giving to their charitable 
organizations. It is regrettable, but if you have less money to spend 
and you save it somewhere for your family, you are not going to be 
giving to the United Way, to that great Federal campaign.
  The lab assistant at NIH who is facing losing her job is not going to 
give to her favorite charity. The customs official at Thurgood Marshall 
Airport is not going to have the same disposable income to make sure 
they give again to the United Way.
  We have to stop sequester. Thursday I will be joining with my 
colleagues, my Democratic colleagues. We have a plan. Our plan is 
simple and straightforward: We come up with $86 billion. Half of that 
is in revenue. What does that mean? It means we come up with money for 
the Buffett rule. It was argued by Warren Buffett when he said he 
should pay the same rate of taxes as his secretary.
  What that means is that on his second million--not his first; we 
believe in entrepreneurship, the job creators, et cetera. But on his 
second million he will pay the same rate as somebody who makes $55,000 
a year.

  The other is we want to close a loophole sending jobs overseas. For 
too long we have rewarded exporting jobs while we should have a Tax 
Code that rewards export of products, whether it is that great 
pharmaceutical industry or art, protecting intellectual property, and 
so on.
  We have come up with that, and then we have a cut in the farm subsidy 
program where we will no longer pay people not to plant. That will be 
about $27 billion. Then, yes, we do cut defense, but that doesn't 
trigger until 2015 when our troops are home from Afghanistan. We never 
want to, through our budget problems, put our troops into harm's way.
  I wanted to share what is going to happen. In my State we represent 
many great Federal iconic agencies that moved to Maryland in the early 
1930s, 1940s, and 1950s when real estate was so high in Washington, DC. 
I am so proud of them. They win the Nobel prizes. They help us win the 
markets.
  They are coming up with the new jobs, the new ideas for the new jobs 
for tomorrow. They are out there--for example, the Coast Guard--making 
sure the Chesapeake Bay is safe or they are dealing with our customs. 
Money is going to the University of Maryland, to Johns Hopkins, to not 
only help our veterans get new arms but to get a new life. Isn't that 
what the people want?
  We can be more frugal. We have to be sensible, but let's not do 
sequester. It is bad money management, and we can do better. What we 
cannot do is continue to delay and put the entire burden on 
discretionary spending. Let's stand up, let's be counted, let's have a 
vote on Thursday. I do hope the Democratic alternative prevails.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, following my remarks I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor, be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before Senator Mikulski, the chair of the 
Appropriations Committee, leaves the floor, I want to thank her for her 
very hard work along with several colleagues putting together a plan 
that is a commonsense plan to avoid this sequester, these automatic, 
senseless spending cuts. It was not easy to do, but I think they 
figured out a way to pay for it, as she described, called the Buffett 
rule, which basically says to a multimillionaire: We think it is only 
fair that you pay the same effective tax rate as your secretary.
  If you were to ask anyone on the street, any party--Republican, 
Democratic--if they think that is the right way to go, I am convinced 
90 percent of the people would say: Of course. I thank her. I know 
Senator Inouye is looking down and smiling because his successor, 
Senator Mikulski, is doing such a great job already.
  I rise as a Senator from California. Senator Feinstein and I 
represent 38 million people. Anything that happens around here comes 
down very hard on our State--or if it is a good thing, it is very good 
for our State. What we are facing is not a good thing, the sequester. 
It is a self-inflicted wound that will harm our economy.
  I have to say, when I listened to Speaker Boehner over there--he is 
refusing to do anything about it. He says, and I will not quote him 
because it would be language not acceptable, but he basically said in 
the press, and it is written there--I urge everyone to see it--that the 
Senators ought to get off their ``blank'' and get to work and get 
something done.
  I am proud to say we have an alternative to the sequester. Senator 
Mikulski laid it out. I believe we have a majority vote in this Senate 
for that plan.
  I hope our colleagues will not filibuster. Let's have that up-or-down 
vote because when you are looking at job losses into the hundreds of 
thousands--and that is certainly true in my State and the country as a 
whole--no one should filibuster a plan that would stave off that pain.
  How did we get to this place? In 2011 the Republicans decided to hold 
our country hostage over raising the debt ceiling. We know if we do not 
pay our bills--which is what the debt ceiling is about--this country is 
going to face default, and our credit rating is going to be lowered. 
Even though we finally resolved this thing at the eleventh hour, we 
still caused the downgrade the time

[[Page S839]]

before. This time we averted another downgrade, but it is very 
important that we remember why we got to this place of facing this 
sequester. The Republicans played games with the debt ceiling again.
  Even though under Ronald Reagan, their hero--and, by the way, I think 
even Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting into the Republican 
Party these days because Ronald Reagan said you should never play games 
with the debt; even talking about the debt is a problem. We raised the 
debt when Ronald Reagan was President; 18 times we raised the debt 
ceiling. But all of a sudden, when there is a Democratic President, 
they are playing games. That is wrong. Obviously, we didn't want to see 
another downgrade. We had already seen a delay the last time, which 
cost us $1.3 billion, in borrowing costs alone.

  In order to avert this, on August 2, 2011, we enacted the Budget 
Control Act. When it became law, we were within hours of defaulting on 
our debts. The Budget Control Act allowed us to raise the debt ceiling, 
but on the condition that a ``supercommittee'' find $1.2 trillion in 
cuts or force a trigger of across-the-board cuts known as 
sequestration.
  Straight from my heart, I say this: No one thought the sequester 
would go forward. Everyone thought the pain to the economy would be so 
great that everybody would sit down and resolve it. But here is what is 
going on right now. Democrats say the way to resolve it and avert the 
sequester is to have dollar-for-dollar spending cuts and increases in 
revenues. Republicans say 100-percent spending cuts and they would 
prefer to do no defense cuts and have it all come out of education, 
transportation, medical research, law enforcement, the environment. 
That is what their plan was last year. So let's face it. No one thought 
we would get to this point, but we are at this point.
  What is the choice? I think it is pretty clear what the choice is. It 
is the Democratic plan, which is a growing economy, versus the 
Republican plan, which is a sequester, which is a slowing economy. When 
I say that, I mean it.
  Mark Zandi, who is one of the leading economists in the country, said 
if sequestration goes forward, it would cut a half of a point off our 
economic growth. What does that mean? It means jobs lost. I have to 
say, when I look at my State, this is not a pretty picture.
  The Los Angeles Times, in an article by Ricardo Lopez and Richard 
Simon today, says: ``California braces for impending cuts from Federal 
sequestration.'' I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the 
Record.

              [From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 25, 2013]

    California Braces for Impending Cuts From Federal Sequestration

                  (By Ricardo Lopez and Richard Simon)

       California's defense industry is bracing for a $3.2-billion 
     hit with the federal budget cuts that are expected to take 
     effect Friday.
       But myriad other federally funded programs also are 
     threatened, and the combined effect is expected to slow the 
     momentum that California's economy has been building over the 
     last year.
       As the state braces for pain from so-called sequestration, 
     there are warnings of long delays at airport security 
     checkpoints, potential slowdowns in cargo movement at harbors 
     and cutbacks to programs, including meals for seniors and 
     projects to combat neighborhood blight.
       Despite the grim scenarios from local and state officials, 
     economists say the cuts' overall blow to the economy would be 
     modest, felt more acutely in regions such as defense-heavy 
     San Diego and by Californians dependent on federal programs, 
     such as college students who rely on work-study jobs to pay 
     for school.
       Critics say the cuts come at an inopportune time because 
     the economic recovery in the U.S. and California is still 
     weak.
       ``We need stimulus, not premature austerity,'' Gov. Jerry 
     Brown said during a break at the National Governors Assn. 
     meeting in Washington.
       Rep. John Campbell (R-Irvine) contends that critics of the 
     cuts are exaggerating the effects.
       ``If we can't do this, what can we do'' to reduce 
     Washington's red ink, he asked. ``We ought to be panicked 
     about the day when people won't buy our debt anymore because 
     we borrowed too much.''
       If automatic spending cuts occur as planned, the growth in 
     the country's gross domestic product is likely to slow by 0.4 
     percentage points this year, from about 2% to 1.6%, 
     economists said.
       California's GDP would see a similar slowdown. The state 
     stands to lose as much as $10 billion in federal funding this 
     year, according to Stephen Levy, director of the Center for 
     Continuing Study of the California Economy in Palo Alto.
       Levy said the more than $1 trillion in cuts planned over 
     the next decade include ``items in the federal budget that 
     invest for the future,'' such as support for research and 
     clean energy, that particularly affect California because of 
     its ``innovation economy.''
       The ripple effects the cuts might have on business and 
     consumer confidence--which would further dampen economic 
     activity--remain to be seen, said Jason Sisney, a deputy at 
     the state's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office.
       ``We're at a point where gains in housing and construction 
     markets have begun to take hold,'' Sisney said. ``A slowdown 
     from sequestration would come at just the moment that the 
     economy was beginning to right itself.''
       Jerry Nickelsburg, a UCLA economist who writes a quarterly 
     economic forecast on the Golden State, said the state's 
     recent economic gains would provide a buffer against 
     sequestration.
       ``California can absorb it,'' Nickelsburg said. ``Will it 
     slow economic growth? The answer is yes. Will it result in 
     negative economic growth? I think the answer is no.''
       Los Angeles officials project that the city would lose more 
     than $100 million at a time when they're struggling to close 
     a hole in the city's budget.
       Douglas Guthrie, chief executive of the Los Angeles city 
     housing authority, said Monday that rent subsidies to as many 
     as 15,000 low-income families would be cut an average $200 a 
     month, forcing many families to search for less expensive 
     housing. His agency also might face as many as 80 layoffs in 
     an already reduced workforce.
       But Guthrie said in a letter to the Los Angeles City 
     Council that the housing authority must plan for the 
     ``painful consequences'' of the federal budget cuts and is 
     preparing to send warning notices to participants in the 
     housing assistance program ``as soon as we see that the cuts 
     are made and there are no immediate prospects to resolve the 
     budget crisis.''
       At Yosemite National Park, snow plowing of a key route over 
     the Sierra would be delayed, ranger-led programs are likely 
     to be reduced and the park would face ``less frequent trash 
     pickup, loss of campground staff, and reduced focus on food 
     storage violations, all of which contribute to visitor safety 
     concerns and increased bear mortality rates,'' according to 
     the National Park Service.
       Some programs, such as Social Security, would be spared 
     from the $85 billion in cuts nationwide due to kick in 
     Friday. But defense programs are expected to be cut by about 
     13% for the remainder of the fiscal year and domestic 
     spending by about 9%, according to the White House budget 
     office.
       The Obama administration sought Monday to highlight the 
     effects close to home in an effort to step up the pressure on 
     Congress to replace across-the-board cuts with more targeted 
     reductions and new tax revenue collected from taxpayers 
     earning more than $1 million a year.
       The Los Angeles Unified School District is bracing for a 
     loss of $37 million a year in federal funding. Supt. John 
     Deasy said Monday that he is sending a letter to the 
     California congressional delegation warning about the 
     ``potential very grave impact'' of the cuts on Los Angeles 
     schools.
       Rachelle Pastor Arizmendi, director of early childhood 
     education at the Pacific Asian Consortium for Employment in 
     Los Angeles, said she anticipated that the cuts would cost 
     her agency $980,000 in federal Head Start funding. That would 
     force PACE to eliminate preschool for about 120 children ages 
     3 to 5.
       ``It's not just a number,'' she said. ``This is closing 
     down classrooms. This is putting our children behind when 
     they're going to kindergarten.''
       The nonprofit serves about 2,000 children, providing most 
     of them two meals a day in addition to preschool education. 
     The cuts would mean PACE would have to lay off four of its 20 
     teachers, forcing the closure of eight Head Start classrooms, 
     Arizmendi said.

  Mrs. BOXER. Our Governor makes the point--he has a way of getting to 
the point: ``We need stimulus, not premature austerity,'' said Gov. 
Jerry Brown.
  The Republicans have become the austerity party and the Democrats 
have become the jobs party. I think people want jobs. There are still 
too many long-term unemployed. We have a stubbornly high unemployment 
rate. There is no question about it.
  Jerry Nickelsburg, a UCLA economist who writes a quarterly economic 
forecast on the Golden State--my State--said: The State's recent 
economic gains would provide a buffer against sequestration, but would 
it slow economic growth? Yes. Why would we do something like this, a 
self-inflicted wound, when there is an easy way to get out of it, which 
is to put into place a rule that says on a person's second million 
dollars, once they get to that point, they are going to pay an 
effective tax rate equal to their secretary? Give me a break. This is 
the greatest country on Earth, and the people I know who live in 
California, for the most part, in the wealthy brackets

[[Page S840]]

are very happy to pay their fair share. They want to pay their fair 
share. They want to give back. They love this country. It gave them 
everything. A lot of them started with nothing.
  So we have the two plans. The Democratic plan was outlined by Senator 
Mikulski and we are going to vote on it on Thursday. I pray to God it 
is not filibustered and a majority will rule and we will get it done. 
It will create a growing economy because it is a balanced plan with 
half cuts, half revenues.
  Then there is a Republican plan which we don't know yet, but the one 
they passed in the House doubled down on the cuts to education, the 
environment, transportation, and left defense alone. That is not fair, 
and that is a sure way we are going to lose hundreds of thousands of 
jobs.
  I wish to share a picture with my colleagues. I don't know if people 
can see this, but it is on the front page of the Washington Post and it 
is a picture of a shipyard worker. The look on his face I can only 
describe as frightened. As a matter of fact, when I saw the photo, 
without seeing what the story was about, I thought, This man is 
expecting some terrible gloom and doom to occur. And, yes, it is his 
fear that he will be laid off. He said his wife is pregnant and he 
doesn't have a second source of income in the family and he is 
desperate.
  We just went through that. Why would we ever do it again? And people 
say to me, What is going to happen? How will I feel it back home? Will 
I have a longer wait at the airport? Yes, you might. Will I go to the 
National Park Service and it may be closed down? Yes. Will job training 
centers, some of them, shut down? Yes. There is a list of what will 
happen.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the 
consequences of the sequester cuts nationwide.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   The Consequences of Sequester Cuts


                              to Education

       70,000 Children From Head Start
       10,000 Teacher Jobs
       7,200 Special Education Teachers
       2,700 Schools From Receiving Title 1 Funds, Cutting Support 
     for 1.2 Million Students


                            to Public Health

       424,000 HIV Tests Conducted by CDC
       25,000 Breast and Cervical Cancer Screenings
       804,000 Outpatient Visits to Indian Health
       Service Hospitals and Clinics
       2,100 Food Inspections
       4 Million Meals Served to Seniors Through
       Programs Like Meals on Wheels
       600,000 Women and Children From Receiving Nutrition 
     Assistance
       1,000 NSF Grants--Impacting 12,000 Scientists and Students
       $902 Million From SBA Loan Guarantees for Small Businesses


                         to Security and Safety

       1,000 FBI Agents and Other Law Enforcement Personnel
       1,000 Criminal Cases From Being Prosecuted by U.S. 
     Attorneys

  Mrs. BOXER. We are looking at 70,000 children not being able to go to 
Head Start. We are looking at 10,000 teacher jobs. We are looking at 
7,200 special ed teachers--we know those special ed teachers; they are 
angels from heaven who work with kids who can't even sometimes manage 
to get dressed in the morning by themselves.
  Then: 2,700 schools won't receive title I funds, cutting support for 
1.2 million children who need help learning to read. Tell me, does this 
make sense, when all we have to do is ask someone earning a second 
million dollars to pay the same effective rate as a secretary? I don't 
get it.
  How about 424,000 HIV tests conducted by the CDC won't happen, so 
someone is going to sneak through and give HIV to someone else? Really, 
that is not a smart thing. Twenty-five thousand breast and cervical 
cancer screenings will not take place, and some poor woman who might 
have had a chance to catch breast cancer at an early stage is thrown 
overboard. Eight hundred thousand outpatient visits to Indian hospitals 
and clinics. Food inspections. Just the time to cut back on food 
inspections. How about 4 million meals will be cut that would have been 
served to seniors through programs such as Meals-on-Wheels. Four 
million seniors won't get that. And what if they don't have a loving 
child to take care of them or what if they don't have a neighbor to 
take care of them? Six hundred thousand women and children won't 
receive nutrition assistance, and we have a lot of hungry people in 
this great country of ours; scientific grants to find cures for the 
diseases that plague our families, whether they are rich or poor or 
anywhere in the middle, to find the cures for Alzheimer's, to find the 
cures for diabetes. Small businesses that do so well when they get that 
little seed money--$902 million cut from there.
  Then: 1,000 FBI agents and other law enforcement personnel, and that 
is because we are just so safe in our communities. I have gone around 
my State and not one person ever came up to me and said, I want less 
enforcement in my neighborhood. It is just too much. It is too safe. 
Not one person ever told me, oh, don't bother checking my air or my 
water quality; I am just fine.
  So if we take these cuts and we apply them to our States, we will 
find out what happens and it is not a pretty picture. Los Angeles alone 
could lose as much as $115 million in Federal grants, just in the first 
6 months of 2013. Community development, public safety, I have been 
through it.
  We don't have to inflict this pain on the American people. Everything 
I said relates to jobs. All of those cuts, what do they mean? Real 
people who do real things in the community such as law enforcement, 
teaching our kids, et cetera, will lose their jobs, not to mention 
people in the Defense Department who are making sure we are always safe 
and ready. That is why we see the look on his face, because he is 
potentially one of those people.
  In closing, I want to thank those who have put together a package for 
us, and I have a plea to my Republican friends: Do not filibuster this. 
Too many lives are at stake. Too many jobs are at stake. Put your plan 
forward, get a vote on it if you have a plan or if your plan is to let 
sequester go through, let's see that vote again, and let us have our 
vote on our plan to avoid this pain and suffering people are going to 
feel.
  I actually have one more point to make and then I will turn to my 
friend from Arkansas. We hear a lot of posturing from my Republican 
friends about how the Democrats are such big spenders and all they want 
to do is spend and tax and tax and spend. What party led the way to the 
first balanced budget in almost 30 years? I will give my colleagues a 
clue: It was not the Republican Party. It was the Democratic Party. 
When Bill Clinton was President, we not only balanced the budget but we 
left George W. Bush a surplus of $281 billion.
  By the way, I happened to be here when we voted on the budget plan 
and we did not have one vote to spare. We did it ourselves.
  What did George W. Bush do with this huge surplus? He squandered it. 
He put two wars on the credit card, never paid for them; gave tax 
breaks to people who didn't need them, and handed President Obama a 
$1.2 trillion deficit, which is now projected to be $850 billion for 
2013. It is going in the right direction under a Democratic President. 
We want to get that down and we can get that down, and we can work 
together to get that down, but we do not have to do this sequester. 
History has shown us the balanced approach we used when Bill Clinton 
was President of smart investments in things that help our people such 
as job training and education and lifting up our children, and making 
sure they don't go hungry--those kinds of investments pay off in a 
society.
  We have 23 million jobs. Under George W. Bush, we lost jobs: George 
W. Bush, we lost jobs. And this President, our President who just got 
reelected, is following the model of Bill Clinton: a balanced approach 
to deficit reduction, investments in things we need, cutting things we 
don't need, and working together.
  I say if we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. We 
are coming out of the greatest recession since the Great Depression, 
and we cannot afford to have this sequester. We need to avert it, come 
together with a balanced plan of cuts and revenues, not just the cuts-
only approach, the austerity approach of the Republicans.
  I hope they don't filibuster our approach and let us have an up-or-
down vote and pass this with a majority.

[[Page S841]]

  I thank my colleagues very much, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank my Senate colleague from California 
for her remarks and also want to finish one point she was making there 
at the end. But before I do, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the final 20 minutes prior to the vote be equally divided and 
controlled between Senators Levin and Inhofe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. I want to thank Senator Boxer for her comments on 
balancing the budget. One of the things we need to understand is that 
we can do this. It was not that long ago when President Clinton was 
elected and he focused on balancing the budget. He made it a priority 
of his administration. He made it a Democratic priority for the 
Democratic Party. They passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1993. It 
passed without one Republican vote in this Chamber and without one 
Republican vote in the House Chamber. But nonetheless it did pass. It 
probably caused some people some elections a couple years later, but 
nonetheless it was the right thing to do. It got us on the course to 
fiscal stability. It took 4 years, but we did balance the budget.
  But there is one thing we also need to mention as we talk about that. 
One advantage Bill Clinton had that we have not had in the last few 
years is a robust, vibrant, and growing economy. He had the longest 
economic expansion in U.S. history. That did not happen by accident. 
That took a lot of work. It took a lot of bipartisan effort here in the 
U.S. Senate, there in the U.S. House of Representatives, and down at 
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It had Governors working together. It had all 
of us working together to try to make sure we got the economy back on 
track because if the economy is growing, the revenues improve, and also 
your safety net programs are not hit nearly as hard.
  So one of the things we need to focus on as a Congress--certainly as 
a Senate--is we need to focus on growing the U.S. economy. That brings 
me to my discussion today about sequestration.
  When we look at the analysis on what sequestration could do to the 
U.S. economy, there could be 750,000 jobs lost in this economy. That is 
a .6 percent shrinkage of the economy by the end of this year. We are 
not talking about somewhere way down the road, out in the outyears. We 
are talking about at the end of this year it will have a negative 
impact on the U.S. economy. That is going to continue to hurt our debt 
and deficit problem. We need to do all we can to avoid this and to grow 
the U.S. economy. We need a growing U.S. economy. There should not be 
government policies that are shrinking the economy. We should be 
growing the economy.
  I wish to say, if you look at the numbers for government employees--
and I think a lot of the news media has focused on government 
employees. There has been a lot of discussion in the press conferences 
and there is all the blame game that has been going on, and I want to 
talk about that in a few moments. But if you look at the numbers in the 
public sector--the Federal employees who will either be laid off or 
furloughed or for whatever reason will not be able to function--those 
are big numbers. But that only tells part of the story. In fact, that 
only tells a small part of the story because this sequester is going to 
harm the private sector much more than it harms the public sector.
  This is something we should understand, that the American people 
should understand. I would hope the American people would insist we 
work together to get something done here in the next few days if 
possible, certainly in the next few weeks to avoid this sequester.
  In my State of Arkansas, there are 91 poultry and meat processing 
facilities that will have to close their doors at least at some point 
because they do not have meat inspectors and food inspectors on site. 
That is 91 facilities. That is a lot of employees. We have employees at 
52 Arkansas FSA offices. These are Department of Ag offices that are 
out around the counties to help people in the farming industry, to give 
them some government resources, advice, et cetera. Fifty-two of those 
offices are not going to close their doors, but they are going to have 
to furlough their employees. There is no doubt they will be at partial 
strength instead of full strength at a very critical time for farmers 
all over the State of Arkansas.
  Also, we have an FDA facility there, the National Center for 
Toxicological Research, and it is going to be cut by an estimated $3 
million. Well, that facility is a nice little economic engine for that 
part of the State. That means when they cut it, it is going to have a 
negative ripple effect, an adverse ripple effect in that part of our 
State's economy.
  I know in this Chamber and in this town there is a lot of discussion 
about making the government small and how we should cut the government 
and how the government should be lean and all that. Do you know what. A 
lot of that I do not disagree with. But I do think it is important for 
all of us, as responsible policymakers, to understand the reality that 
whether we like it or not--and many of us have philosophical 
disagreements on this; and I am not trying to get into that, but 
whether we like it or not, our government is very intertwined in the 
U.S. economy, our government is a critical part of the U.S. economy.

  So you take something like the food industry--and I am chairman of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture--if you take something 
as basic as agriculture--something that may not be very sexy, that does 
not get a lot of headlines, that people do not think a lot about 
because we take it for granted in this country that we are going to 
have a good, healthy, robust food supply, but that does not have to be 
the case. It certainly is not the case in most countries around the 
world. We are very spoiled. We are very fortunate in this country to 
have that. But the agricultural sector cannot function without the 
government.
  Again, we have a safe food supply. We need inspectors out there to 
make sure that meat and other foods that are being processed get that 
USDA seal of approval--grade A, whatever it is. That means something. 
If we cannot know our food is safe, then we have diminished what it 
means to live in this country. We do not want to get into that. Let's 
avoid that. This is avoidable.
  I know a lot of Arkansans, when I talk to them, say: Can't you all do 
something? Can't you work together? The answer is yes, we can work 
together. It is just a matter of political will. We have to make up our 
minds that is what we are going to do, that we are going to work 
together.
  In 2011, we passed the Budget Control Act. Here again, I think the 
news media has not covered this a lot, has not explained this very well 
to most Americans. But one of the things the Budget Control Act of 2011 
did, among other things, is it set spending caps for the Federal 
Government. So as back in the 1980s, when people worried about $180 
billion deficits--now we have much larger deficits than that, but back 
then in the 1980s, we put on the Gramm-Rudman spending caps and things 
such as that--Gramm-Rudman-Hollings--and there were other efforts over 
the years.
  Well, that is what we have done with the Budget Control Act. We have 
spending caps for the next 10 years--now it is for the next 9 years 
when it comes to Federal spending. I think people do not always 
appreciate that because what they hear out of Washington--instead of 
people explaining what is going on and trying to help the American 
people understand what they get from Washington--is blame, blame, 
blame. I cannot count the number of press conferences we have had where 
one side has come out to blame the other side. I know some of the House 
Members just came out and blamed the Senate. Democrats are blaming 
Republicans. Republicans are blaming the President. The President is 
blaming the Congress. It goes on and on and on. It never stops. It is a 
dead-end street.
  The truth is we voted for sequester. I do not care who came up with 
the idea, we voted for it. As we have talked about many times on this 
floor, the reason we put sequester in in the first place was because it 
was such a bad idea; it will be so hard to do; it does not make a lot 
of sense. But, nonetheless, it was to try to force our folks to get to 
a budget deal. It did not happen. But I think the important thing is, 
all Americans need to know everybody in Washington owns this. You can 
blame all you want. You can have as many

[[Page S842]]

press conferences as you want, but everybody in Washington owns this. 
We need to own up to our responsibility as Congressmen and Senators and 
as the President and do what we can to not hurt this country.
  Let me talk for a few more moments because I see one of my colleagues 
has arrived here. Let me say the sequestration, again, was an idea that 
was put together because they wanted it to be so painful that we would 
never get here. These are arbitrary cuts. You do not take into account 
the efficiency of programs, the effectiveness of programs. You do not 
take into account the merits of programs. You just cut across the 
board.
  I think we probably will do some more cuts. We probably should do 
some more cuts. I think if you look at the Simpson-Bowles blueprint--
that proposal a lot of us have talked about over the last couple 
years--they would probably look at that and look at the numbers and say 
we still need to do some cutting. But we also need some revenue. We 
still need to do that. But our cuts should be smart and they should be 
deliberate and they should increase the bang that the taxpayer gets for 
their buck. That is not what sequestration does. It does not achieve 
any of those goals.
  One thing about the Department of Agriculture--here again, people 
need to understand this; we talk about this here in our committee rooms 
and whatnot, but I think a lot of times the message does not get out--
agriculture funding has already been cut by 15 percent. There has 
already been a 15-percent cut to agriculture, starting in 2010 to 
today: 15 percent. I think it is unwise for us to cut an industry which 
is one of the core strengths of the U.S. economy.
  If we look at the U.S. economy, there are a lot of things we do well. 
But there is no doubt at all we do agriculture better than anyone else 
in the world. There is not even a close second place. You innovate when 
it comes to agriculture. This is where you maximize crops. The United 
States of America is the gold standard for agricultural productivity 
and new technology and innovation and all these great things to make 
this country the breadbasket that it is. So why in the world are we 
going to cut, cut, cut agriculture? It does not make any sense.
  Of course, rural America is struggling disproportionately. With the 
recession and all that has hit rural America, it is tough out there. 
Let me tell you, I come from a very rural State. It is tough. These 
cuts are going to harm rural America much more than they will harm 
urban America and suburban America. It is a fact of life. Again, that 
is another reason why we need to avoid this.
  So in closing--I know I have one of my colleagues here who wishes to 
speak--let me get back to the meat inspectors. The Department of 
Agriculture says they may have to be furloughed for up to 15 days. That 
means you are going to have to temporarily close--maybe for a day at a 
time--6,000 processing plants nationwide. There are over 90 of those in 
Arkansas. Just in my State, that is going to have an impact on not 
those few government jobs, it is going to have an impact on 40,000 jobs 
in the private sector--40,000 jobs in the private sector--because of 
this.
  It also is going to disrupt the efficiencies we have in the protein 
markets in this country. What that means is, prices are going to go up, 
people are going to pay more for their meat products at the grocery 
store and at the restaurant. This is not going to be a win for anybody. 
And I think you are going to see about $400 million in industry wages 
that could be lost as a result. That is not going to help the U.S. 
economy.
  Then you expand what the U.S. Department of Agriculture does beyond 
row crop and livestock-type agriculture. They do a lot in the area of 
clean water, fire and rescue vehicles in rural communities. They do 
community building in rural America--things such as hospitals, school 
construction. They do rental assistance programs, and a lot of these 
are for the poorest of the poor out there around our country. Again, it 
is going to disproportionately hurt these people who can least afford 
it.
  I mentioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but also at the FDA, 
it seems to me almost every one of their employees around the country 
could be subject to these furloughs and these cuts and will be 
adversely affected.
  Do we want to interrupt the gold standard we have with food and drugs 
in this country through the FDA? I would say no.
  I think it is time for us to come together, to work together, to find 
a solution. I think one of the bits of good news we see in Washington 
is there is nothing wrong here that we cannot fix with some political 
will. I think that is what this is all about. It is a little bit of a 
test of wills right now, but I think there is no doubt we can fix this 
with some political will.
  Mr. President, with that, I will yield the floor.
  I see my colleague from Vermont is in the Chamber.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank my colleague from Arkansas for yielding.
  When we talk about sequestration, when we talk about deficit 
reduction, it is important to put that discussion in a broader context. 
The broader context needs to be, No. 1, what is the fairest way to move 
toward deficit reduction and what is the best approach in terms of 
economic policy making our country strong and creating jobs.
  I fear very much the debate we are currently having has very little 
to do with financial issues. I believe it has a lot to do with 
ideology. It is all about economic winners and losers in our country. 
It is all about the power of big money. It is all about the soul of 
what America is supposed to be.
  You may have noticed there was a poll done. I can't remember who did 
it, but it was consistent with all the other polls I have seen. They 
asked the American people: Are you concerned about deficit reduction? 
Do you think we should cut Social Security and Medicare? 
Overwhelmingly, Democrats said no, Republicans said no.
  Yet here in the Congress, surrounded by lobbyists and campaign 
contributors who are very wealthy, that is where we are heading. We are 
heading toward a so-called chained CPI, which very few people outside 
the beltway understand. This will mean cuts, significant cuts in Social 
Security and in benefits for disabled veterans.
  The American people say we think the wealthiest people in this 
country should help us with deficit reduction, protect the safety net.
  In Congress, there is a fierce attack by the Republicans and some 
Democrats on the safety net. To a large degree, we are allowing large 
corporations, that are enjoying very low effective tax rates, to get 
away with what they are doing.
  When we talk about who should help us with deficit reduction, we need 
to look at what is going on economically in the United States of 
America. We don't discuss this issue enough. We need more people coming 
down to the floor to talk about it. We have the most unequal 
distribution of wealth and income of any major country on Earth, and 
the gap between the very wealthy and everyone else is growing wider.
  Today, the wealthiest 400 individuals in this country own more wealth 
than the bottom half of American people, 150 million people. You have 
150 million here, you have 400 over there. Who do you think should pick 
up the burden of deficit reduction?
  Should we go after children who are having a hard time getting the 
nutrition they need or seniors who can't afford prescription drugs? 
Yes, we could do that.
  Is that a moral thing to do? No. Is that good economics? No.
  Today, one family, the Walton family of Walmart, is probably the most 
major welfare beneficiary in America. So many of their low-paid 
employees are on Medicaid, food stamps or other Federal programs. This 
one family owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the American 
people.
  Do you know what we did a couple months ago? We gave the Walton 
family a tax break by expanding the estate tax.
  Today, the top 1 percent owns 38 percent of all financial wealth--1 
percent owns 38 percent. The bottom 60 percent owns less than 3 percent 
of all wealth.
  What do we think? Do we want to go after the bottom 60 percent, 
families

[[Page S843]]

who are making $25,000, $30,000 a year, falling further and further 
behind? Do we want to take away the educational opportunities and the 
nutrition their kids can get? Yes, we may do it that way. Maybe it 
makes more sense to go after the top 1 percent who are doing 
phenomenally well.
  Do you know what. The vast majority of Americans agree with that, but 
this Congress does not reflect the interests of the vast majority of 
the American people. It is not the American people who are funding the 
campaigns for Members of the Senate and the House. It is not the 
average American who has well-paid lobbyists all over this place.
  As Warren Buffett has pointed out, the 400 richest Americans are now 
worth a record-breaking $1.7 trillion, more than 5 times what they were 
worth two decades ago.
  While the wealthiest people are becoming even richer, the Federal 
Reserve reported last year that median net worth for middle-class 
families dropped by nearly 40 percent from 2007 to 2010, dropped by 40 
percent. That is the equivalent of wiping out 18 years of savings for 
the average middle-class family.
  Whom do we go after? Do we think it makes any economic or moral sense 
to go after a middle class which is disappearing or maybe do we ask the 
wealthiest people in this country--who are doing phenomenally well--to 
help us with deficit reduction?
  As bad as wealth inequality is, the distribution of income, what 
people make every year is even worse. It is an amazing statistic, and I 
hope everybody pays attention to this.
  The last study on the subject of income distribution showed that from 
2009 to 2011, the last study we have, 100 percent of all new income 
went to the top 1 percent, while the bottom 99 percent actually saw a 
loss in their income. In a sense it doesn't matter, given that 
incredible imbalance in income, what kind of economic growth we have. 
All the gains are going to go to the top 1 percent.
  I have some friends over in the House, our Republican friends, who 
are saying: No, no, no. We can't ask these people to help us more with 
deficit reduction. I think that is very wrong.
  When we are talking about how to reduce the deficit--and we all want 
to do that--we need to understand we can't get blood out of a stone. We 
can't ask people who are earning less and in many cases working longer 
hours. We can't ask the 14 percent of Americans who are unemployed. If 
we add people who have given up looking for work and people who are 
working part-time, we cannot get blood out of a stone. As Willy Sutton 
the bank robber reminded us, you go where the money is. In this case, 
all the money and all the income gains are with the top 1 percent.
  The other point that needs to be made is we need to ask the question 
of how we reached the place we are right now. No. 1, we need to ask who 
is best able to help us with deficit reduction. It is surely not the 
struggling middle class. It is surely not the disabled veterans and 
their families. It is surely not elderly people who can't afford 
prescription drugs. It is surely not kids who don't have enough to eat.
  The second question we need to ask is how did we get to where we are 
today. Did this deficit just arrive yesterday?
  I think we all remember that in the last year of the Clinton 
administration this country had a $236 billion surplus, a surplus. The 
economists were projecting that the surplus would expand, expand, and 
expand.
  What happened from the year 2000 to 2013 so that we went from a very 
significant surplus to a very serious deficit? That needs to be 
understood when we talk about sequestration and deficit reduction. The 
answer is, as everybody knows, we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
A strange thing happened. We forgot to pay for those two wars. When we 
go into two wars and we are taking care of all those veterans who have 
been hurt, that adds up to something like $3 trillion by the time we 
take care of the last veteran, as we must.
  During the Bush administration, we gave huge tax breaks to the 
wealthiest people in this country, didn't offset it. That adds up. We 
passed the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, didn't pay for 
that. That adds up.
  Most important, because of the greed, recklessness, and illegal 
behavior on Wall Street, we were plunged into a major recession, high 
unemployment, businesses going under, less tax revenue coming into the 
Federal coffers.
  I know my Republican friends say cut, cut, cut, cut benefits for 
disabled vets, cut Social Security, cut Medicaid, cut nutrition, cut 
Head Start. We could do it that way, but we should also understand that 
at 15.8 percent as compared to GDP, the percentage of GDP, our revenue 
is almost the lowest it has been in 60 years.
  Yes, in the middle of a recession we are spending a lot of money 
making sure people don't go hungry, making sure people who lost their 
jobs have unemployment benefits, making sure people have affordable 
housing. It is true. What is also true is that at 15.8 percent, as a 
percentage of GDP, our revenue is less, almost less than it has been in 
60 years.
  Today, not only are we seeing a growing gap between the very wealthy 
and everybody else, it is important to take a look at large 
corporations. When we do, we find that corporate profits are at an 
alltime high, while corporate income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP 
is near a record low. Profits are soaring, and the effective tax rate 
is near a record low.
  In 2011, corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP was just 1.2 
percent lower than any other major country in the OECD, including Great 
Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, et cetera. Corporate revenue 
as a percentage of GDP is 1.2 percent lower than any other major 
country in the OECD. In 2011, corporations paid 12 percent of their 
profits in taxes, the lowest since 1972.
  We have a choice. Do we go after the elderly? Do we go after the 
sick? Do we go after the children? Do we go after the poor or maybe do 
we say that when corporate profits are at a record level and their 
effective tax rate is the lowest since 1972, maybe we say to corporate 
America, hey, help us with deficit reduction.
  The last figures we have seen on this issue is that in 2005, one out 
of four major corporations paid no income tax at all while they 
collected over $1 trillion of revenue over that 1-year period.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SANDERS. Let me conclude by simply saying we are losing $100 
billion a year from tax havens in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. 
There are ways to do deficit reduction without hurting the most 
vulnerable people in this society.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Before Senator Sanders leaves, let me commend him. I 
didn't hear all his remarks, but I know the subject of his address, his 
remarks, was the fact corporations now contribute about 10 percent of 
the total revenue which comes into Uncle Sam. Years ago, it was about 
50 percent, and then gradually it has come down to about where it is 
now.
  The reason for that, mainly, is that there are a whole bunch of 
gimmicks and loopholes which have been inserted into our tax laws which 
need to be closed. If they can be closed, we would be able to avoid 
sequestration. That is how big the loopholes are.
  I am not talking about deductions, which most people would say serve 
a useful purpose. Whether people agree with that purpose, at least 
deductions, as we generally understand deductions, serve some kind of a 
productive purpose. For instance, corporations get accelerated 
depreciation when they buy equipment. That serves a very important 
purpose. It gives an incentive to buy equipment.
  Even the oil and gas credit, which I don't support, nonetheless, the 
purpose of it is to give an incentive to explore and drill for oil and 
gas. Whether one agrees with that purpose, at least it is a purpose. 
When it comes to these loopholes and gimmicks which are used to shift 
revenues to tax havens, there is no useful purpose. The only purpose is 
taxable. Those are the loopholes which we can close, and those are the 
loopholes which it seems to me there ought to be broad bipartisan 
support to close. If we can close them, we can avoid sequestration. 
Again, that is how big these loopholes are.

[[Page S844]]

  I very much appreciate the reference by the Senator from Vermont to 
our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the work we have been 
doing, and I very much appreciate the energy he brings to this effort. 
It ought to be bipartisan. Again, these kinds of loopholes are not what 
most people consider to be legitimate deductions but are a kind of tax-
avoidance scheme that should not be in the law even if we had no 
deficit. I guess one of the critical differences between these kinds of 
tax-avoidance gimmicks and the ordinary deductions corporations take is 
the fact that the use of these and the abuse of these should be 
eliminated on a bipartisan basis.
  So I would like to thank my friend. I wish I had caught the early 
part of his remarks, but that was not to be.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the President's 
nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense.
  I know Senator Chuck Hagel well from having served with him for many 
years in the Senate. We were sworn in as Senators on the same day and 
traveled to Iraq together in 2003 as part of the first Senate 
delegation there after the war began.
  Senator Hagel's courageous military service deserves our praise and 
gratitude, and I know he cares deeply about our servicemembers. His 
experience as a soldier during the war in Vietnam is significant as the 
Senate considers his nomination to be Secretary of Defense, but, of 
course, it is but one factor that we must weigh in our consideration of 
him for this critical Cabinet post. Senator Hagel and I spent 90 
minutes in my office discussing a wide range of issues, which I 
appreciated, and I reviewed carefully the lengthy Senate Armed Services 
Committee hearing on his nomination.
  The next Secretary of Defense will be responsible for managing a 
massive bureaucracy, the defense budget, threats emanating from Iran, 
North Korea, and Islamist extremism, the withdrawal of United States 
combat forces from Afghanistan, and an increasingly provocative Chinese 
military as well as personnel issues affecting those serving in 
uniform.
  With regard to our servicemembers, I am confident that Senator Hagel 
would devote the necessary attention to address the horrendous rate of 
sexual assault in the military and would work to reduce the 
unacceptable, record high number of suicides among our troops.
  As the coauthor with former Senator Joe Lieberman of the law that 
repealed the military's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy that barred 
openly gay people from serving in the military, I am now satisfied that 
Senator Hagel is committed to implementing this law fully.
  We also discussed the specter of sequestration, which would lead to 
irresponsible cuts that would cripple our readiness and capability to 
project power on land, air, and sea. Senator Hagel reiterated Secretary 
Leon Panetta's position that such meat-ax cuts would be disastrous and 
catastrophic to our national security and economy.
  In addition, I understand Senator Hagel's overall philosophy on the 
need to exercise caution before deploying military forces. Such 
restraint, at times, can provide a valuable voice of caution to temper 
the impulse to exercise America's significant military edge.
  Nevertheless, several critical issues loom large as I contemplate the 
threats facing our national security and consider Senator Hagel's 
nomination. These issues include the proliferation of terrorism, the 
threat of a nuclear-armed Iran and the reality of a nuclear-armed North 
Korea, an increasingly dangerous and unstable Middle East that 
threatens our national interests and our ally Israel, and the 
possibility of deep and indiscriminate cuts in the defense budget that 
would undermine America's strength and security.
  While Osama bin Laden is dead and al-Qaida has suffered significant 
losses in Afghanistan and Pakistan, violent Islamist extremism has 
metastasized to other regions around the world, particularly to the 
countries in North Africa. The terrorist attack in Benghazi left four 
Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, and an attack 
killed three Americans at an Algerian gas facility. AQAP's top bomb-
maker is still at large, and Hezbollah and Hamas continue to rearm in 
Lebanon and Gaza. Hundreds of rockets have been fired from Gaza into 
Israel, the vast majority fortunately stopped by the highly effective 
Iron Dome.
  Senator Hagel's views on these critical threats are unsettling to me. 
For example, with regard to Hezbollah, Senator Hagel was unwilling to 
ask the European Union to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist 
organization in 2006. While 88 other Senators, including then-Senators 
Obama and Clinton, supported this reasonable request, Senator Hagel did 
not. Hezbollah has the blood of more Americans on its hands than any 
other terrorist organization besides al-Qaida, yet Senator Hagel 
refused to urge the EU to call Hezbollah what it is--a terrorist 
organization.
  Senator Hagel has explained to me that he had a principle of not 
sending correspondence to foreign leaders because he believes the 
President, not Congress, conducts foreign policy. Indeed, in January 
2009, former Senator Hagel did sign an ill-advised letter counseling 
Barack Obama to spearhead direct, unconditional talks with Hamas--a 
position that President Obama wisely chose to disregard.
  Senator Hagel's general principle of abstaining from sending letters 
to foreign leaders on policy matters did not, however, preclude him 
from signing a 2007 letter to the Prime Minister of Vietnam to 
encourage efforts to bring the Peace Corps to that country. If 
expanding the Peace Corps' presence warrants an exception to Senator 
Hagel's policy of not sending letters to foreign leaders, I cannot 
fathom why a matter as grave and as clear as a request to the EU to 
name Hezbollah a terrorist group would not warrant a similar exception.
  When it comes to the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, the American 
people have been told for several years that Iran is 18 to 24 months 
away from having the capability to build a nuclear weapon. I fear that 
we are truly within that time window as I speak today. A nuclear-armed 
Iran would have grave consequences for the United States and would pose 
an existential threat to the State of Israel. The prospect of a 
nuclear-armed Iran could also fuel the most significant proliferation 
of nuclear weapons in the Middle East since the dawn of the nuclear 
age. Thus, Senator Hagel's votes, statements, and views on this grave 
threat matter a great deal.
  What concerns me as much as his repeated reluctance previously to 
leave all options on the table is his past hesitancy to exercise all of 
the non-military options, such as unilateral sanctions, that are the 
primary peaceful means of inducing Iran to cease its nuclear weapons 
program and allow for International Atomic Energy Agency inspections.
  Senator Hagel supports multi-lateral sanctions contending that they 
work better and has opposed unilateral sanctions. Certainly, in an 
ideal world, multi-lateral sanctions can be more effective, and I 
welcome other countries that wish to join the United States in adopting 
sanctions. But the United States' imposition of sanctions--even if we 
were to act virtually alone--not only helps to disrupt Iran's nuclear 
program but also demonstrates moral leadership.
  In the last Congress, I introduced legislation to make shipping 
classification societies choose between doing business with Iran or 
with the United States Coast Guard. It was a unilateral effort. I did 
not have the authority to make this change at the U.N. Initially, these 
organizations thought it would be business as usual. As the bill moved 
through Congress and now that the bill is law, none of them continues 
to work with Iran. That's just one example of an effective unilateral 
action.
  Particularly concerning to me is a press report that Senator Hagel 
thwarted an effort in 2008 to pass sanctions against Iran that was 
supported by more than 70 Senators. The Department of Defense contends 
that Senator Hagel joined other Republican Senators in holding the Iran 
Sanctions bill due to concerns they and the Bush administration had on 
how to impose the most effective sanctions on Iran. According to the 
Department, his disagreement was not with the objectives of the bill, 
but was a vote based on its effectiveness at that time.
  I am not, however, aware of any other Republican Senator blocking 
that bill. Furthermore, it does not

[[Page S845]]

matter who else may have been involved because no one but Senator Hagel 
is the President's nominee to be the Secretary of Defense.
  We are at a moment in history when there can be no reservation, 
hesitancy, or opposition to enact any and all sanctions that could 
change Iran's calculus regarding its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
  We are seeing a major transformation in the Middle East. The United 
States' interests in this region are vital: trade through the Suez 
Canal, the availability of energy resources, the security of Israel, 
the prevention of Iran developing a nuclear weapon, and the future of 
Syria which has the potential to destabilize the region.
  Will we be resolute and stand by our friends and allies, even during 
this tumultuous time? In our partnership with Israel, there is an 
opportunity for the United States to demonstrate that we stand by our 
allies even when the neighborhood looks more dangerous than it has in 
decades.
  Unfortunately, I am concerned that Senator Hagel's nomination would 
send the wrong message at the wrong time to our allies and adversaries 
around the world about the resolve of the United States. It is telling 
and disturbing that when I asked Senator Hagel what he believed were 
the greatest threats facing our country, he identified the resource 
shortage that could result from the addition of two billion more people 
during the next couple decades as near the top of his list. While there 
no doubt will be tremendous challenges associated with this 
development, his response concerned me when I consider all of the 
enormous near-term threats facing our country.
  In my judgment, Islamist terrorism, a nuclear-armed North Korea and 
potentially a nuclear-armed Iran, an unstable and chaotic Middle East, 
cyber attacks, Chinese provocations, and budget constraints will likely 
consume the attention of our country's national security leaders during 
the next 4 years. I believe a vote in favor of Senator Hagel would send 
the wrong signal to our military, the American people, and to the world 
about America's resolve regarding the most important national security 
challenges of our era.
  I am unable to support Senator Hagel to be the next Secretary of 
Defense because I do not believe his past positions, votes, and 
statements match the challenges of our time, and his presentations at 
his hearing did nothing to ease my doubts. I regret having to reach 
that conclusion given our personal relationship and my admiration for 
Senator Hagel's military service. But I have concluded that he is not 
well-suited for the tremendous challenges our country faces during this 
dangerous era in our history.
  As I announce my decision to cast my vote in opposition to Senator 
Hagel's nomination, let me address one final question: Should this 
nomination, which causes me such great concern, be filibustered? As a 
general rule, I believe a President has the right to choose the members 
of his Cabinet, and only in extraordinary circumstances should such a 
nomination be filibustered. I oppose Senator Hagel's nomination, but I 
cannot join in a filibuster to block each Senator's right to vote for 
or against him.
  I wish that President Obama had made a different choice for this 
critical position, but he is entitled to have this nominee receive a 
direct vote on the Senate floor. And I, for one, will vote against the 
nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I support the confirmation of our former 
colleague and my friend, Chuck Hagel, to serve as Secretary of Defense.
  Providing advice and consent on a nomination for the President's 
Cabinet is one of the Senate's most significant constitutional 
responsibilities, particularly in the case of the Secretary of Defense. 
It is a very serious responsibility because no duty is more important 
than preserving the safety and security of our Nation and its people.
  I believe this nominee has the knowledge and ability to carry out the 
duties of this important office. Chuck Hagel feels strongly that the 
United States should be the most capable military power in the world. 
He also believes the United States must continue to be committed to 
Israel's security and its ability to defend its borders.
  At a time when our adversaries continue to increase their arsenals of 
rockets and missiles and to develop medium- and long-range ballistic 
missiles that threaten our security, the security of our deployed 
forces, and the security of our friends and allies, it is imperative 
that we continue to develop, field, and maintain a robust missile 
defense capability. I know Senator Hagel is supportive of these 
efforts, and I will be pleased to join with him in further advancing 
these priorities.
  Senator Hagel is a decorated Vietnam veteran, a successful 
entrepreneur, Deputy Administrator of the Veterans' Administration, 
President and CEO of the USO, and a two-term United States Senator. 
Throughout his distinguished career in public service, Senator Hagel 
has proven himself to be a fair, intelligent and courageous leader of 
good character and integrity.
  I am confident that Senator Hagel will serve with distinction as 
Secretary of Defense.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel to be our next Secretary 
of Defense. He is eminently qualified for the position and possesses an 
exemplary record of service to this country. I strongly believe that a 
President is entitled to his cabinet selections unless there is 
something in an individual's record or background that is 
disqualifying. And there is nothing in Senator Hagel's background that 
is disqualifying. He is a veteran, he has been a successful CEO, and he 
has served at highest levels of the legislative and executive branches.
  I served with Senator Hagel during his two terms in the U.S. Senate--
including his service on the Senate Intelligence Committee from 2003-
2008. I found him to be a knowledgeable and independent voice with a 
strong grasp of the pressing national security issues facing our 
country. Those of us who served with him know Senator Hagel's story 
well. His career began as a sergeant in the U.S. Army in Vietnam where 
he served with distinction and earned two Purple Hearts. Indeed, as an 
enlisted man, he has seen the true costs of war. He understands that 
the use of military force should always be a last resort and should 
only be undertaken with a clear strategy, clear mission and the 
resources to get the job done. He understands that we have a solemn 
obligation to take care of our returning veterans and the families and 
loved ones of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. As we emerge from 
over 10 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan that is the kind of 
leadership we need at the Department of Defense and, more importantly, 
that is the kind of leadership the men and women in uniform deserve. 
They will take pride in the fact that Senator Hagel will be the first 
enlisted man and the first Vietnam veteran to head the Department.
  Chuck also served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the USO 
and as the Deputy Administrator of the Veterans Administration during 
the Reagan administration, where he fought to ensure that our veterans 
received the benefits they earned, including assistance for those 
suffering from Agent Orange. He then went on to the private sector 
where he co-founded VANGUARD Cellular Systems, a leading cellular 
carrier in the U.S. Most recently, he co-chaired the President's 
Intelligence Advisory Board.
  Now, it is no secret that Senator Hagel has his critics, but let us 
take a closer look at who has endorsed his nomination.
  A bi-partisan group of 13 former Secretaries of State, Secretaries of 
Defense, and National Security Advisors from the Reagan, George H.W. 
Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations sent a letter to the 
Senate expressing their support for Senator Hagel to be the next 
Secretary of Defense arguing that he is ``uniquely qualified to meet 
the challenges facing the Department of Defense and our men and women 
in uniform.'' They continued:

       Our extensive experience working with Senator Hagel over 
     the years has left us confident that he has the necessary 
     background to succeed in the job of leading the largest 
     federal agency.

  He has also received endorsements from 11 senior retired military 
leaders, over fifty Ambassadors and statesmen, and numerous veterans' 
organizations.

[[Page S846]]

A group of ten former U.S. Ambassadors--including four former 
Ambassadors to Israel--argued that:

       We can think of few more qualified, more non-partisan, more 
     courageous or better equipped to head the Department of 
     Defense at this critical moment in strengthening America's 
     role in the world.

  The group of retired Generals and Admirals from the Army, Air Force, 
Marines, and Navy--including General Anthony Zinni, General Brent 
Scowcroft, and Admiral William Fallon--went even further. In an open 
letter, they argued that Senator Hagel ``would be a strong leader'' as 
the next Pentagon chief and that he's ``eminently qualified for the 
job.'' But, more importantly, they believe that he understands the 
challenges that our warfighters face and is the person who can best 
lead the Pentagon.
  And, even with all the accusations about Senator Hagel's views on 
Israel, Israeli Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said that ``[Senator 
Hagel] certainly regards Israel as a true and natural U.S. ally.''
  Clearly, those of us here in the Senate who support Senator Hagel's 
nomination are not alone in believing he will make a fine Secretary of 
Defense and will serve our nation, once again, with distinction.
  Make no mistake, difficult challenges lie ahead. We are transitioning 
out of Afghanistan, but its future remains uncertain, and the threat of 
global terror endures, particularly in North Africa. We are on the 
verge of seeing massive cuts to the Pentagon's budget due to 
sequestration, which will negatively impact readiness and the defense 
industrial base. The nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea move 
forward, and new tests and provocations continue, including in areas 
such as cybersecurity.
  In my view, Senator Hagel has the insight, experience, and know-how 
to take on this daunting agenda and help protect American lives and 
U.S. national security interests. I look forward to supporting his 
nomination as the next Secretary of Defense, and I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, is the remainder of the time reserved for 
the Hagel nomination or is it just open?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is. There is 20 minutes, with 10 minutes on 
each side.
  Mr. LEVIN. And the vote is to take place at 4:30?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. And the time is evenly divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I think it is safe to say that is accurate.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 5 weeks ago Senator Hagel was warmly 
introduced at his nomination hearing by two former chairmen of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Sam Nunn and Senator John 
Warner, who represent the best bipartisan tradition of the Senate and 
our committee. As a matter of fact, the Presiding Officer, Senator 
Manchin, was present at the time when that presentation was made by 
Senators Nunn and Warner, and he was a witness to how powerful their 
testimony in support of Senator Hagel was.
  Senator Nunn told the committee:

       I believe that our Nation is fortunate to have a nominee 
     for Secretary of Defense with the character, the experience, 
     the courage, and the leadership that Chuck Hagel would bring 
     to this position.

  He said:

       There are many essential characteristics and values that a 
     Secretary of Defense should possess in our dangerous and 
     challenging world.

  And he named a few of them, including someone who sets aside fixed 
ideology and biases to evaluate all options and then provides his or 
her candid judgment to the President and to the Congress. He also named 
this characteristic: someone who pays attention to people with the best 
ideas regardless of their party affiliation.
  And then Senator Warner said:

       Folks, there is an old saying in the combat Army infantry 
     and Marine Corps. ``Certain men are asked to take the 
     point,'' which means to get out and lead in the face of the 
     enemy. Chuck Hagel did that as a sergeant in Vietnam. If 
     confirmed, Chuck Hagel will do it again, this time not before 
     a platoon, but before every man and woman and their families 
     in the Armed Services.

  Facing Senator Hagel, he said this:

       You will lead them. And they will know in their hearts we 
     have one of our own.

  Earlier today the Senate acted in a bipartisan fashion in voting to 
end the filibuster of this nomination by a very substantial vote.
  If confirmed, Senator Hagel would be the first former enlisted man 
and the first veteran of the Vietnam war to serve as Secretary of 
Defense. This background gives Senator Hagel an invaluable perspective 
not only with respect to the difficult decisions and recommendations a 
Secretary of Defense must make regarding the use of force and the 
commitment of U.S. troops overseas but also with respect to the day-to-
day decisions a Secretary must make to ensure that our men and women in 
uniform and their families receive the support and assistance they need 
and deserve.
  Our country faces major challenges. Abroad, we face challenges from 
Afghanistan, where the Department of Defense faces key decisions about 
the pace of the drawdown between now and the end of 2014, decisions 
about the size and the composition of a residual force, and decisions 
about the terms and conditions for our ongoing presence in Afghanistan 
after 2014.
  Elsewhere overseas, we face the ongoing threat of Iran's nuclear 
weapons program, the destruction and instability caused by Syria's 
civil war, and the outgrowth of al-Qaida affiliates in ungoverned 
regions, including Yemen, Somalia, and north Africa.
  We also face extremely difficult issues here at home. We have been 
warned that sequestration and a yearlong continuing resolution risk 
creating a hollow force and could confront our military leaders with 
the untenable choice between sending troops into harm's way without 
adequate training and equipment or being unable to take on certain 
missions at all. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has 
described the impact of this budget crisis on the Department of Defense 
as a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10.
  Now as much as anytime in the recent past, our men and women in 
uniform need a Secretary of Defense to guide them through difficult 
situations around the world and to defend their interests here at home. 
The President needs a Secretary of Defense in whom he has trust, who 
will give him unvarnished advice, a person of integrity and one who has 
a personal understanding of the consequences of decisions relative to 
the use of military force.
  It is time to end the uncertainty relative to the leadership at the 
Pentagon. The time has come to now confirm Chuck Hagel as our next 
Secretary of Defense, and I hope the Senate will, on a bipartisan 
basis, soon do exactly that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is, Shall the Senate advise and consent to the 
nomination of Charles Timothy Hagel, of Nebraska, to be Secretary of 
Defense.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 24 Ex.]

                                YEAS--58

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Pryor

[[Page S847]]


     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
  The President shall be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________