[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8837-8849]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                         Gun Violence Epidemic

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, today we mark the 6-month 
anniversary of a date that none of us will ever forget because it 
transformed our lives, it transformed America, and it certainly 
transformed Connecticut and the community of Newtown.
  We commemorate the 6-month anniversary of that unspeakable, 
unimaginable tragedy that cut short the lives of 20 beautiful, innocent 
children and six dedicated, courageous educators.
  It transformed America in so many ways. It changed our lives 
irrevocably and, I hope, put us on a trajectory toward changes in our 
laws that will prevent this kind of horrific, unimaginable tragedy from 
ever happening again. Our challenge right here in this body, on this 
floor, is to make sure we learn from it, that we act on it, and that we 
keep faith with those families, as well as the Newtown community and 
all of our country that lost so much that day.
  December 14 began like so many other days for the parents of Newtown, 
CT. They took their children to school, kissed them goodbye, and went 
about their day with plans for play dates, Hanukkah and Christmas 
holiday parties, and presents that they would give to those children 
for those holidays. They planned snack breaks and holiday parties. They 
wrapped presents. Just hours later, I stood with them and saw them 
emerge from the Sandy Hook firehouse having learned that those children 
would not be coming home that night.
  I arrived in Newtown as a public official within hours of that 
shooting. But what I saw was through the eyes of a parent--grief-
stricken, panicked parents, tears streaming down their faces--who came 
hoping to reunite with their children. Many parents did reunite. 
Children were brought to all of the parents who gathered at the 
firehouse, and they left with their children--until the families who 
realized that their children would not be coming home.
  I saw those families who lost beautiful, young children. Some of them 
are here, along with adults--dedicated, courageous adults--families of 
educators who died themselves trying to save their children. I will 
never forget the cries of grief, anguish, pain, and disbelief.
  Every parent in his or her DNA has something fundamental. It is about 
trust and caring for children, making sure they come home at the end of 
the day when they go to school; that they are kept safe in some very 
basic and fundamental way. Society shares that trust. Society failed in 
that trust.
  We will never forget the loss and heartbreak of that tragic day in 
Sandy Hook. But we also know that in the face of evil there was 
tremendous goodness and heroism. There were genuine heroes: the first 
responders who braved the unknown, hearing gunfire, charging into that 
school, and stopping the shooting through their courage because the 
shooter turned that gun on himself. There were the brave educators, 
teachers, administrators, and school psychologists who threw themselves 
in front of bullets or tried to save their children and perished 
themselves. Then members of the community who came together in support 
of the families and who themselves, along with first responders, are 
continuing to recover. They exemplify the quintessential values of this 
quintessential New England town that make us proud to be American.
  Thirty-two members of the victims' families at the massacre wrote to 
the

[[Page 8838]]

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Through their unspeakable pain and 
suffering, they asked Congress to honor the memory of their loved ones 
by supporting measures to stem and stop the epidemic of gun violence. 
They wrote, ``In the midst of our anguish we are compelled to speak out 
to save others from suffering what we have endured.''
  These brave families have come to Washington to tell their stories. 
They sat in this very gallery. They met with colleagues. Some of our 
colleagues refused to meet with them. I urged them to share some of 
their hurt and meet with them, to hear their stories. We owe them 
tremendous respect and gratitude. They enabled us to come to this point 
where we are close to making fundamental changes in the law.
  But in April, that day of the vote was a day of shame because the 
Senate turned its back on the families of Newtown while some of them 
watched in this very gallery. How to explain to those families or try 
to explain how 90 percent of the American people could be in favor of 
reasonable, commonsense measures that we proposed--background checks on 
all firearms purchases and a ban on illegal traffic and straw 
purchases, on assault weapons, and on excess capacity magazines--how 90 
percent of the people could be in favor of those kinds of commonsense 
measures, most especially the background checks, yet the Senate failed 
to pass it.
  Those families have been resolute and resilient at every turn. Mark 
Barden, whose son Daniel was killed 6 months ago at Sandy Hook, wrote:

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

  Despite their profound and harrowing loss, those parents, husbands, 
wives, sisters, brothers, grandmothers have kept faith and they have 
inspired us to keep faith. They uplifted us and their determination has 
meant the world to colleagues who have heard them, and as an example of 
grace under pressure and courage and strength, they have refused to 
give up.
  They will not give up, nor will we. We are coming back for another 
vote. We will not allow that vote to be the final one. It may be the 
first one, but it is not the final one, and we will win the last vote, 
which is the one that counts.
  In the meantime many of my colleagues have stood up to the special 
interests and most especially the NRA, which was accustomed to having 
its way and holding sway in this body, in Congress, just as a 
schoolyard bully would. My colleagues have stood up to that bully once 
and will do it again. This time we will win.
  What happened in Newtown could happen anywhere in America. If it 
happened there, it can happen in any town or city, and it has, in fact, 
claimed the lives of 4,900 people since Newtown. Gun violence has 
claimed their lives. I am constantly shocked and saddened by how 
quickly that number rises each time I speak about this topic. Just last 
week a man armed with semiautomatic AR-15 assault rifle and more than 
1,300 rounds of ammunition, opened fire at a Santa Monica college and 
killed five people.
  The stories about Newtown, about all of the massacres since and 
before--whether Columbine or Virginia Tech or Arizona and Tucson--
affirm that these laws can help save lives. These laws can help save 
lives.
  Six months ago I left the firehouse at Sandy Hook to attend a vigil 
at a church in Newtown. The church was St. Rose of Lima, presided over 
by Father Bob, Msgr. Robert Weiss. The church was filled. It was a 
powerful and moving experience. People listened to the service through 
the windows and the PA system outside.
  I said that evening the world is watching Newtown. In fact, for 6 
months the world has watched Newtown. It has seen a story of 
unparalleled and unprecedented courage and fortitude. Now we will 
continue to watch Newtown. But the world is also watching the Senate. 
We need to be worthy of the courage and strength that Newtown has 
demonstrated in moving ahead.
  I thank the majority leader Harry Reid and all of my colleagues who 
have determined that we will bring this bill back, not only to honor 
the memories of the Newtown victims and keep faith with them but also 
to make this country better and safer, worthy of these children, 
beautiful and innocent at the time of their passing with all of their 
future ahead of them. There were educators who worked for their whole 
professional lives, trying to help children such as these young people.
  Out of that grief and pain we can make America safer and stronger. We 
can make America better. That is the potential legacy of these lost 
lives, a better and safer America. If we achieve it, they will not have 
died in vain.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I join my colleague from Connecticut on 
the floor of the Senate to commemorate a sad day; 6 months since the 
shootings in Newtown took the lives of 20 6- and 7-year-olds and 6 of 
the teachers charged with protecting them. I know you share in our 
sadness, Madam President, since it was not too long afterwards that 
your State went through a tragedy of smaller and bigger proportions.
  We have to wonder, 6 months later, after these families, the brothers 
and the sisters and the moms and the dads of these victims coming down 
to the Senate, over and over again, including this week, looking 
Senator after Senator, Congressman after Congressman, in the eye and 
asking for this place to learn something from this tragedy--we wonder 
how 6 months later we have done nothing. We wonder how, if 20 little 
kids dying at the hands of a mad man with a gun over the course of 5 or 
10 minutes doesn't move this place to action, what would? What visit to 
your office, what message, what story, what set of facts could possibly 
make this place change the laws that have allowed for these 
slaughters--plural--over and over again to happen?
  It is 6 months later and we have done nothing. At least on the Senate 
floor we raised the bill, we put it on for debate, we got 55 votes, and 
the rules prevented us from getting it passed. The House down the hall 
has done absolutely nothing. They have not lifted a finger to move 
legislation for 6 months, 6 months later, and no answer to these 
families.
  I was there with Senator Blumenthal that afternoon in that firehouse. 
Those are moments I would, a lot of days, love to have never lived--
things I did not need to see. But it changed my life and committed me 
to action.
  It commands us to understand that the most shallow argument that has 
been posed, I would argue the most backward argument that has been 
posed over the last 6 months, is that, yes, these terrible things 
happen--the most terrible of them we are marking the 6-month 
anniversary of--but there is nothing we could do here that would change 
that; that very bad things are going to happen to good people, to good 
first grade students, but that nothing here is going to truly change 
any of that.
  That is just flat wrong. It should not be every 6 months that we come 
to the floor to try to rebut that argument. It should be every day. 
Because in Columbine, the guns that were bought to slaughter those high 
school students were bought outside of the background check system--
intentionally so, because the person who bought them knew if they went 
into a legitimate gun store they would not be able to purchase the guns 
that were being requested, so they went to a gun show, around the 
background check system.
  We know different laws would change things because in Aurora the 
shooter went in with a 100-round drum and the shooting stopped and 
people escaped, including a couple of my constituents, because the gun 
jammed. They had trouble switching these massive ammunition clips.
  In Newtown, we know the power of the gun that was used. These assault 
weapons are all over the place today. They have become commonplace. But 
it does not belie the fact that they still have a power to kill that 
few other guns do, so much so that when Lanza walked into that school 
that day, fired over 150 rounds, shot 20 kids, not a single one of them 
survived. Every kid he

[[Page 8839]]

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

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

  Let me translate that. It meant we would increase the Border Patrol. 
That was the only mention of how we were going to secure the border 
after we gave amnesty in 1986. And at that time, I say to my 
colleagues, the cost, as I mentioned, was 50 percent higher. The Border 
Patrol has to be 50 percent higher.
  Well, the number of Border Patrol agents in 1986 was 4,000--4,000. 
Now we have 21,000. So there was really nothing in the 1986 bill about 
fencing, about sensors, about other ways to get our border secure. So 
we learned from that.
  We learned from that, and this legislation that recently passed 
through the Judiciary Committee and is now on the floor, as compared 
with 1986 where they said they would increase the numbers of Border 
Patrol agents by 50 percent--this legislation appropriates $3 billion 
in funding for the comprehensive southern border security strategy. No 
one who is in RPI status will be able to petition for a green card 
until certain requirements are fulfilled, including the following: E-
Verify in use by all employers, an entry-exit system in place, $1.5 
billion in additional funding for the southern border fencing strategy 
that has to be submitted within 180 days of passage of this legislation 
and signed by the President.
  It sets the goal of a 90-percent effectiveness rate for all southern 
border States. If that goal is not reached within 5 years, there will 
be a bipartisan commission formed and authorized to spend $2 billion in 
additional funds to secure the border.
  It will add an additional 3,500 Customs and Border Patrol agents. 
Remember, in 1986, there was a total of 4,000.
  It will authorize the National Guard to provide assistance along the 
border if requested. The National Guard has had tremendous success on 
our border. No, they don't carry weapons, but they do incredibly 
important work, and I am glad they don't carry weapons, to tell the 
truth.
  The bill funds additional Border Patrol stations and forward 
operating bases.
  It increases something called Operation Stonegarden funding, which is 
vital, in my view, in disincentivizing people to frequently cross the 
border, and strengthens Border Patrol training.
  It authorizes funds to triple the border-crossing prosecutions in the 
Tucson sector. Why do I mention the Tucson sector? Not because I am 
from the State of Arizona but because the Tucson sector for years has 
been a major thoroughfare for both people and drugs.
  The current bill will authorize funds to help States and localities 
incarcerate criminal unauthorized illegal immigrants.
  It grants the Department of Homeland Security access to Federal 
lands.

[[Page 8840]]

That is a problem on our border, where we have an Indian reservation 
that is right on the border. They are sovereign nations, and this will 
authorize a greater ability for us to have access to those lands. There 
are wildlife refuges we need access to as well.
  The bill removes the discretion from the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to develop the southern border strategy and provides the 
minimum requirements recommended by the Border Patrol. Those are the 
people on the ground. These are the people who today, in 120-degree 
heat at the Sonora, AZ, border, are sitting in vehicles and patrolling 
our border to keep our Nation secure. This is recommended by them and 
must be included in the strategy that we want to achieve and must 
achieve, which is 100 percent situational awareness of each and every 
1-mile segment of the southern border.
  The technology list will include, but is not limited to, sector-by-
sector requirements for integrated fixed towers, VADER radar systems. 
These radar track people back from where they came.
  The list includes unmanned aerial systems--what we know as drones--
fixed cameras, mobile surveillance systems, ground sensors, handheld 
thermal imaging systems, infrared cameras, thermal imaging cameras, 
license plate readers, and radiation detection systems. All of these 
are part of this legislation and the billions of dollars we are going 
to spend to improve border security. We all admit the border is more 
secure, but where I disagree with the Secretary of Homeland Security is 
that it is not secure enough.
  So we want to prevent the adjustment of status RPI, which is 
registered permanent status, for people who will be granted it once the 
passage of this bill is achieved until that strategy is deployed and 
operational--deployed and operational. This is just to achieve a legal 
status in this country; also, a technology list before anybody can 
adjust RPI to green card status.
  It removes the sole discretion from the Department of Homeland 
Security to certify the strategy is complete. It requires written, 
third-party certification to the President and Congress that affirms 
the elements required by the strategy are operational and capable of 
achieving effective control of the border.
  With these tools in place, we can achieve situational awareness and 
be guaranteed this technology is deployed and working along the border. 
So I say to my friends who say we do not have sufficient provisions for 
border security, we will be glad to do more, but let's look at this.
  Look at what we are doing: billions of dollars of technology as well 
as additional people, as well as other measures, including the E-
Verify. The magnet that draws people to this country is jobs, and if 
the word is out that unless an E-Verify is in operation--unless a 
person can get a job in this country they are not going to come here 
unless it is through a legal means and not through illegal means.
  We are a nation of immigrants. I would remind my colleagues again, 40 
percent of the people who are in this country illegally did not cross 
our border. They came on a visa that expired. So we need to have 
footprints and other physical evidence of illegal crossings. It is a 
tool for Border Patrol agents to identify and locate illegal border 
crossers. But it is imprecise. That is why we need to have this 
technology, so we can surveil and have situational awareness of the 
entire border.
  The General Accounting Office is an organization all of us over time 
begin to rely on enormously, and I will quote from them:

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

  That is tracking footprints--

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

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

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

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

  Minimum Requirements To Be Included in the Southern Border Security 
                                Strategy

                   Arizona (Yuma and Tucson Sectors)


                       Between the ports of entry

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


                    At points of entry, checkpoints

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


                             Air and Marine

       3 VADER radar systems
       6 Air Mobility Helicopters

                               San Diego


                       Between the ports of entry

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


                    At points of entry, checkpoints

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


                             Air and Marine

       2 Aerial Downlink Communication Systems

[[Page 8841]]

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

                               El Centro


                       Between the ports of entry

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


                    At points of entry, checkpoints

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


                             Air and Marine

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

                                El Paso


                       Between the ports of entry

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


                    At points of entry, checkpoints

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


                             Air and Marine

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

                                Big Bend


                       Between the ports of entry

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


                    At points of entry, checkpoints

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


                             Air and Marine

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

                                Del Rio


                       Between the ports of entry

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


                    At points of entry, checkpoints

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


                             Air and Marine

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

                                 Laredo


                       Between the ports of entry

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


                    At points of entry, checkpoints

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


                             Air and Marine

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

                           Rio Grande Valley


                       Between the ports of entry

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


                    At points of entry, checkpoints

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


                             Air and Marine

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

  Mr. McCAIN. I see my distinguished friend from Vermont on the floor, 
who is always worth listening to, so I will be brief.
  I wish to share with our colleagues another aspect of this problem 
that we really have not talked about very much, and that is the issue 
of drugs.

[[Page 8842]]

Drugs are a problem of enormous proportion in this country. We see the 
effects of illegal drugs such as methamphetamine and others, and we see 
it is doing incredible damage to our Nation and particularly to our 
young people.
  This document is called the Arizona High Intensity Drug Trafficking 
Area Threat Assessment of 2013. Now, I am not going to go into a lot of 
the details, but there are some stark facts about the flow of drugs 
across our southern border that should disturb all of us. I quote:

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

  Ton quantities of marijuana in the southwest region--

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

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

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

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

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

  The high density trafficking area--

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

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

[[Page 8843]]

  I am particularly concerned that at a time when college is becoming 
increasingly unaffordable--and every parent out there with a high 
school kid is worried about how that family is going to afford college 
for their kids--at a time when young people desperately need jobs to 
help pay for the cost of a college education, this bill will make it 
more difficult for young Americans to find the jobs they need.
  Today, youth unemployment is over 16 percent, and the teen 
unemployment rate is over 25 percent. Unfortunately, many of the jobs 
that used to be performed by young Americans are now being done by 
foreign college students through the J-1 Summer Work Travel Program and 
the H-2B guest worker program.
  Millions of Americans, including myself--and I suspect many Members 
of Congress--earned money when they were young at summer jobs or at 
part-time jobs when they were in college in order to pay for the cost 
of college. Some Americans today are working as waiters and waitresses. 
They are working as lifeguards. They are working as front-desk clerks 
at hotels and resorts. They are working as ski instructors, as cooks, 
chefs, kitchen personnel, chambermaids, landscapers, and many other 
similar jobs. And there is nothing any American has to be embarrassed 
about at working at any of those jobs or any other job in order to earn 
some income to pay the bills or to make some money in order to afford 
to go to college. There is nothing anybody should be ashamed about 
doing that kind of work. What I worry about very much is the degree to 
which those jobs will be available for young Americans as a result of 
the J-1 program and the H-2B program.
  It pains me very deeply that with minority unemployment 
extraordinarily high--I was just in Detroit last week talking to kids 
who are working so hard, and they are working for $7.25 an hour at 
McDonald's or other fast food places--if they are lucky enough to get 
that work. Many of them would like to go to college but are unable to 
earn the money they need in order to go to college. It seems to me 
terribly wrong that we have programs such as this J-1 Summer Work 
Travel Program which brings students from all over the world into the 
United States to take jobs that young Americans want to do.
  The J-1 program for foreign college students is supposed to be--is 
supposed to be--used as a cultural exchange program, a program to bring 
young people into this country to learn about our way of life, our 
customs, and to support international cooperation and understanding. 
Those are extremely important goals. I believe in that passionately. 
When I was mayor of the city of Burlington, we started sister-city 
programs with towns around the world in order to develop that type of 
understanding and cooperation. That is the theory of what the J-1 
program is supposed to be, and a wonderful goal it is.
  Unfortunately, that is not what it is today. Today the J-1 program 
has morphed into a low-wage jobs program to allow corporations such as 
Hershey's and McDonald's and many others to replace young American 
workers with cheaper labor from abroad. Each and every year companies 
from all over this country are hiring more than 100,000 foreign college 
students in low-wage jobs through the J-1 Summer Work Travel Program.
  Unlike other guest worker programs, the J-1 Summer Work Travel 
Program does not require businesses to recruit American workers for 
these positions, offer jobs to willing and able Americans first, or to 
pay prevailing wages. In other words, if there are jobs out there that 
our young people would like to get in order to put aside a few bucks or 
help pay for the cost of a college education, the employer is not 
obliged to reach out to these young Americans. It is one thing for an 
employer to say: Look, I reached out, tried to get some young people to 
do this job, could not find them, and I had to go abroad. I can 
understand that. But that is not the requirement of this J-1 program.
  Let me read from a Web site of a foreign labor recruiter touting the 
benefits of using the J-1 Summer Work Travel Program to employers in 
the United States. This Web site is called jobofer.org. This is one, as 
I understand it, of many. But here is what it says. I quote from the 
Web site jobofer.org. This is going to employers who need unskilled 
workers for the summer.

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

  International seasonal workers.

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

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

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

  Got that? You can bring in international workers, students from 
abroad, and one of the advantages you

[[Page 8844]]

have is you pay lower taxes on that foreign worker than you do for an 
American worker.
  In fact, under the J-1 Summer Work Travel Program, employers do not 
have to pay Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment taxes, which 
amounts to a payroll savings of about 8.45 percent per employee. What a 
bargain. So we are enticing--we are giving an incentive to a company to 
bring foreign workers into this country and saving them money by hiring 
foreign workers at the expense of young Americans who certainly can do 
those jobs.
  Under the J-1 program, employers do not have to pay Social Security 
and Medicare payroll taxes. They do not have to pay unemployment taxes. 
They do not have to offer jobs to Americans first. They do not have to 
pay wages that are comparable to what American workers make. What 
employer in America would want to hire a young American as a lifeguard 
or a ski instructor or a waiter or a waitress, or any other low-skilled 
job, when they can hire a foreign college student instead at a 
significant reduction in cost?
  I understand the immigration reform bill we are debating reforms this 
program by requiring foreign labor recruiters to pay a $500 fee for 
every foreign college student they bring into this country. Right now, 
foreign college students bear all of these costs. But in my opinion, 
that is not good enough. This program is a real disservice to the young 
people in this country.
  I believe in cultural exchanges. I would put a lot more money into 
cultural exchanges so our young people can go abroad, so young people 
from all over the world could attend our high schools. That would be a 
great thing. But that is not what this J-1 program is. It is a program 
which is displacing young American workers at a time of double-digit 
unemployment among youth, and it is putting downward pressure on wages 
at a time when the American people are in many cases working longer 
hours for lower wages.
  In my opinion, this particular program should be abolished. Cultural 
program, yes; but bringing in young people to take jobs from young 
Americans, no. At the very least, if we are not going to abolish this 
program, we need to make sure we have a comparable summer and year-
round jobs program for our young people in order to help them pay for 
college and to move up the economic ladder. At the very least, that is 
what should be in this bill.
  That is why I will be filing an amendment today to the immigration 
reform bill to create a youth jobs program. My amendment would provide 
States with $1.5 billion in immediate funding to support a 2-year 
summer and year-round jobs program for low-income youth and 
economically disadvantaged young adults. This amendment is modeled on 
the summer and year-round youth jobs program included in President 
Obama's American Jobs Act.
  This amendment would build on the success from the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act, which provided $1.2 billion in funding for the 
WIA Youth Jobs Program. This program created over 374,000 summer job 
opportunities during 2009 and 2010 for young Americans who desperately 
needed those jobs. This amendment, in fact, would create even more 
jobs.
  Let me be very clear. The same corporations and businesses that 
support a massive expansion in guest worker programs are opposed to 
raising the minimum wage. They have long supported the outsourcing of 
American jobs. They have reduced wages and benefits of American workers 
at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high. In too many 
cases, the H-2B program for lower skilled guest workers and the H-1B 
for high-skilled guest workers are being used by employers to drive 
down the wages and benefits of American workers and to replace American 
workers with cheap labor from abroad.
  The immigration reform bill that passed the Senate Judiciary 
Committee could increase the number of low-skilled guest workers by as 
much as 800 percent over the next 5 years and could more than triple 
the number of temporary white-collar guest workers coming into this 
country. That is the basic issue. That is my basic concern. At a time 
when unemployment is so high, does it make a whole lot of sense to be 
bringing hundreds of thousands of workers from all over the world into 
this country to fill jobs American workers desperately need?
  The high-tech industry tells us they need the H-1B program so they 
can hire the best and the brightest science, technology, engineering, 
and math workers in the world, and that there are not enough qualified 
American workers in these fields. In some cases--let me be very 
honest--I think that is true. I think there are some companies in some 
parts of the country that are unable to attract American workers to do 
the jobs that are needed. I believe in those instances, corporations 
should have the right to bring in foreign workers so the corporation 
can do the business it is supposed to be doing.
  But having said that, let me also tell you some facts: In 2010, 54 
percent of the H-1B guest workers were employed in entry-level jobs and 
performed ``routine tasks requiring limited judgment,'' according to 
the Government Accountability Office. Routine tasks.
  So when a lot of my friends here talk about high-tech workers, they 
are talking about scientists, they are talking about all of these guys 
who are doing a great job, but that is not necessarily the case. Only 6 
percent of H-1B visas were given to workers with highly specialized 
skills in 2010, according to the GAO. More than 80 percent of H-1B 
guest workers are paid wages that are less than American workers in 
comparable positions, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
  Over 9 million Americans have degrees in a STEM-related field, but 
only about 3 million have a job in one. Last year, the top 10 employers 
of H-1B guest workers were all offshore outsourcing companies. These 
firms are responsible for shipping large numbers of American 
information technology jobs to India and other countries. Half of all 
recent college graduates majoring in computer and information science 
in the United States did not receive jobs in the information technology 
sector. So it seems to me this is an issue we have got to deal with.
  The second amendment I will be filing today is with Senators Grassley 
and Harkin. That amendment would prohibit companies that have announced 
mass layoffs over the past year from hiring guest workers unless these 
companies can prove their overall employment will not be reduced as a 
result of these mass layoffs. In other words, what we are seeing is a 
very clear trend. Large corporations are throwing American workers out 
on the street, and they are bringing in foreign workers to do those 
very same jobs.
  Many of those very same companies have moved parts of their corporate 
world away from the United States into Third World countries. So this 
continues the attack on American workers. We must stop it.
  Let me give you a few examples as I conclude my remarks. In 2012, 
Hewlett-Packard, one of the large American corporations, announced it 
was laying off 30,000 workers at the same time it hired more than 660 
H-1B guest workers. In 2012, Cisco laid off 1,300 employees at the same 
time it hired more than 330 H-1B guest workers. In 2012, Yahoo hired 
more than 135 H-1B guest workers at the same time it announced it was 
laying off over 2,000 workers. Research in Motion hired 24 H-1B guest 
workers at the same time it laid off over 5,000 people.
  I think it makes no sense at all that corporations that are laying 
off American workers are now reaching into the H-1B program to bring in 
foreign workers.
  Let me conclude by saying there is much in this legislation I support 
and that I believe the American people support. But problems remain. 
Problems remain. The main problem to me is this guest worker concept 
which is being widely abused by employers throughout this country. At 
the very least, I want to see a summer jobs program for our kids who 
are now losing jobs because of the J-1 program. But we need to do even 
more than that.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues who have worked so hard 
on

[[Page 8845]]

this bill to make it a bill that all Americans and all working people 
can be supportive of.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in 
morning business and engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South 
Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Syria

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

[[Page 8846]]

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

[[Page 8847]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cowan). The Senator from Texas.


                             Iran Election

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


                          Defense Contracting

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the power of the free 
enterprise system. It is one of the reasons for America's greatness. I 
know from experience that private businesses do some things better than 
the government ever could. But over the last couple of decades, the 
United States has increasingly relied on private contractors to do the 
work the men and women in our Armed Forces used to do, and they are 
getting exorbitant salaries to do the same work--in some cases, almost 
twice the salary of the President of the United States.
  To the people of West Virginia and to me it doesn't make any sense to 
pay a defense contractor up to $763,000 a year. That is almost twice as 
much as our Commander in Chief and almost four times as much as our 
Secretary of Defense. If we do nothing about this, this

[[Page 8848]]

figure will automatically rise to $951,000 next year--$951,000. That is 
almost $1 million a year right in the middle of sequestration when we 
are cutting everything.
  With the war in Afghanistan winding down, it is only natural for 
defense contractors to be looking for new opportunities, and the 
southern border of our country is one of the places they are eyeing. In 
fact, the New York Times says some of them are getting ready to 
demonstrate military grade and long-range camera systems this summer in 
an effort to secure billion-dollar contracts with Homeland Security.
  I understand we need the expertise of a private industry to secure 
our borders, but taxpayers should not be responsible for the exorbitant 
salaries these contractors are demanding. So I am offering an amendment 
that would cap compensation for private contractors employed for border 
security. The cap would be $230,700 annually, which is the most a 
government civilian can be paid in a given year. So it is in line with 
what we are doing.
  That is significantly more than we pay Defense Secretary Hagel or our 
Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano.
  There is nothing in my amendment that would prevent contractors from 
making more than $230,000. We are not saying they can't make more than 
that. We are saying they can't pass that through to the taxpayers of 
America. They have to pay it out of the profits of their company. The 
only thing I am preventing is the taxpayers from having to foot the 
bill.
  I have heard some proposals to bring that figure down to $487,000. 
That is an improvement. But, frankly, I can't look West Virginians in 
the eye, and I am sure the Chair would have a hard time looking his 
constituents in Massachusetts in the eye, and justify paying government 
contractors that much money because it is just hard to justify. It 
can't be justified.
  We need to get our fiscal house in order. We can't do that if we 
allow private contractors to charge the taxpayers exorbitant salaries 
of almost $1 million. It is time for commonsense controls on 
contractors' salaries. So I am asking for the support of this amendment 
when it comes to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to share 
some remarks, and I appreciate the eloquence of my friend and colleague 
from West Virginia on the issue he just mentioned.
  The committee did reduce almost by half the amount that contractors 
could bill, and we may see further changes in that issue. But when we 
are talking about money, real money, there is a problem we have with 
the bill that came out of committee. It is such a grim, serious matter 
that we have to talk about it, we have to be up front about it, and 
nobody can be confused about it.
  I was pleased with Chairman Levin. He is a wonderful chairman of our 
committee. We have consistently had bipartisan votes. I wanted it to be 
a bipartisan vote for the bill and voted for it today, but I am not 
sure that was the right vote because I said during the committee that 
we have a serious problem in the amount of money that was appropriated 
for the bill, $52 billion over the current law.
  There is a hope and belief that we can fix that gap between now and 
the time it comes to the floor. Secretary Hagel was before the Budget 
Committee yesterday. I am the ranking Republican on the Budget 
Committee. He indicated he is working on a plan to help us be within 
the law. He also indicated that to Chairman Levin and Ranking Member 
Inhofe on the Armed Services Committee. But let's be sure what the 
situation is.
  August 2011 we had run up huge debt. We had hit our debt ceiling 
again. The administration and the President wanted to raise the debt 
ceiling $2.1 trillion, one of the largest--or maybe the largest--raise 
of the debt ceiling in history. That was supposed to take us 2 or 3 
years.
  Well, we have already hit that debt ceiling again now it appears. 
Soon we will be having to pass legislation. All the little extensions 
and maneuvering to extend the debt ceiling a little longer are being 
exercised, and we will soon have to vote again to raise the debt 
ceiling.
  But in August of 2011, after much intensity of effort, legislation 
passed. I opposed it. One of my biggest concerns was what it was doing 
to the defense budget. But the bill passed. It set up a committee, and 
the committee was to deal with future cuts and long-term entitlement 
programs and other programs. That was their goal. They were given that 
challenge.
  Fundamentally, the bill that passed raised the debt ceiling $2.1 
trillion, but it reduced the growth of spending over the next 10 years 
by $2.1 trillion. Unfortunately, those reductions in the growth of 
spending fell disproportionately on the Defense Department. I will 
mention that in a minute.
  But the agreement was clear. There were no tax increases. There were 
no other gimmicks to it other than the spending level would be reduced 
over 10 years by $2.1 trillion. We were then spending at the level of 
$3.7 trillion a year, which would mean $37 trillion over 10 years. We 
were on track to spend $47 trillion over 10 years--a substantial 
increase from the current level. So the agreement was that it would 
reduce the growth to $45 trillion instead of $47 trillion.
  There was a hope that the committee would reach an even more historic 
agreement in which entitlements--Social Security and Medicare--would be 
put on a firm foundation, and we would get the country on the right 
track.
  The committee failed. They did not reach an agreement. So in law 
there remains the BCA, and within the Budget Control Act there was the 
sequester, and the sequester would take another $500 billion. The BCA 
took about $500 billion out of the defense budget, and the sequester 
part of the BCA took another. When the committee didn't reach an 
agreement, that was another $500 billion to be taken out of the Defense 
Department, $1 trillion.
  The Defense Department represents one-sixth of the Federal budget, 
almost $1 trillion out of the defense, one-sixth of the government. 
That is one-half of the cuts that were to be taken from our entire 
government.
  When we look at the numbers over 10 years, the defense budget 
adjusted for inflation would take a 14-percent reduction in its 
funding, whereas the remaining five-sixths of the Federal Government 
would have a 44-percent increase in its funding.
  This is the kind of malapportionment of belt tightening that ought 
not to happen. So I thought--and I believe the American people 
thought--that we should get together with the President and see how we 
can avoid this problem and spread the cuts out through other agencies 
and departments, many of which had no reductions whatsoever. Of course, 
Social Security had no reduction whatsoever. Medicaid--one of the 
fastest growing programs of all--had zero reduction in spending under 
sequester. Food stamps had gone from $20 billion to $80 billion, 
increased fourfold in 12 years, and got zero cuts. A lot of other 
programs got zero cuts; whereas, the Defense Department was getting 
hammered.
  People think, well, the war is coming down and the Defense Department 
can handle it. No, that is not the way it works. The war costs are 
entirely separate. This is a reduction of the base defense budget, 
where we pay our soldiers, pay our electric bills, maintain our 
aircraft, our ships, our ports, and our bases around the world. That is 
what is being cut, the fundamental strength of the military, and it is 
too much.
  Can they survive it? Not without doing some damage. Sure, they will 
survive it, and they will be able to get by. But what ought to be done 
is we ought to get together with the Commander in Chief of the U.S. 
military, work with the Secretary of Defense, former-Senator Chuck 
Hagel, get together and figure out a way to have some other parts of 
this government take some of the reductions in spending that have 
fallen disproportionately on the Defense Department. It is just that 
simple.

[[Page 8849]]

  I suggested to Secretary Hagel yesterday at the Budget Committee 
that, yes, he ought to be talking with Congress; yes, we have 
eventually the power of the purse; but nothing is going to happen in 
the Senate that President Obama doesn't agree to. Senator Reid is not 
going to support anything President Obama doesn't agree to. It looks to 
me like the Members of the Democratic caucus are going to stick 
together on this issue. They have so far. Months have gone by and 
sequester hasn't been fixed.
  So I said: I assume, Mr. Secretary, you have the phone number to 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue. I think you had better call over there to the 
Commander in Chief of the U.S. military, who has an obligation to the 
men and women he is deploying all over the world and sending into 
harm's way, and who has an obligation to maintain the strength of our 
military.
  Yes, it can be more efficient. It has already taken $500 billion in 
cuts, and it may take a little more. But these cuts are more than can 
be easily assimilated.
  I just believe this has drifted to a point where we are in a serious 
predicament. The military has already had to lay off civilian workers 
of the U.S. Government for 11 days, furloughed without pay, and done 
other things to try to stay within the financial constraints they are 
now under because the cuts are beginning to bite.
  So that is the situation. I want to say to my colleagues, I do not 
believe the Defense bill that came out of committee--and we had a nice 
discussion today on multiple issues that are important to America's 
defense, and we had a good collegial feeling. I don't believe that bill 
should pass the Senate--I don't believe it will pass the Senate--if it 
violates the spending limits we voted on just 2 years ago.
  Just think of it. We agreed to reduce the growth of spending from $37 
billion now at that rate 2 years ago. We were going to let it grow to 
47, we reduced the growth to 45, and we come back to the American 
people and say we can't effect that now? We can't reduce the growth and 
spending just that little bit? We promised you that we would raise the 
debt ceiling, but I know it made you angry, American people. You were 
mad at us because we mismanaged your money. But we promise, we will 
reduce the growth of spending by $2.1 trillion. Trust us. We will do 
it.
  And here we are. President Obama, 6 months later, produced a budget 
that wiped out all those cuts and increased taxes, taxes and spending. 
This has been the pattern we have been in. I have to say, we do not 
need to have this happen.
  So I am prepared to meet with the President. I am prepared to meet 
with the Secretary of Defense, the Office of Management and Budget, and 
talk about where we can find other reductions in spending and reduce 
some of the reductions on the Defense Department. We need to reduce a 
good many of those, frankly. Then the Defense Department can phase in 
some reductions in spending over the outyears. They can do that. But 
too much too fast is destabilizing. No business would do that. So we 
have to figure out a way to make this system work.
  I was pleased to work with Senator Levin and Senator Inhofe today. I 
want to be cooperative and be positive in our efforts. I like much of 
what we did with the authorization bill in the Armed Services 
Committee, but we just didn't talk about the elephant in the room; that 
is, the sequester, the real danger we have there. We are going to have 
to discuss it now. It will be part of the floor discussion and debate 
if it is not fixed.
  It can be fixed. I think we are all prepared to work for it. I don't 
believe this country will sink into the ocean. I don't believe this 
country is going to have to close its ports. I don't believe this 
country is going to have to end tours at the White House to reduce the 
growth of spending by $2 trillion, from $47 trillion to $45 trillion 
over the next 10 years. I don't believe that is going to bankrupt us. 
But we ought to do it in a smart way. We should have every agency and 
department of government tighten their belts, not just some.
  We slipped into this when the sequester was written to try to effect 
some political result that didn't occur, and now, as a responsible 
Senate, we have to consider what is right for America. The right thing 
is to have all agencies and departments tighten their belts and reduce 
the pressure that is now falling on our Defense Department.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________