Tom Cotton

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida. I am pleased to offer this amendment with him. I do agree that it is critical we have this debate on what we should be spending on our military. While I respect the work of the Budget Committee, I also call attention to the views of the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee on which I sit, that they would spend $577 billion on defense next year, which would eliminate sequestration. I suggest, as the Senator from Florida did, that we need to look to the views of the National Defense Panel, which did draw from Secretary Gates' fiscal year 2012 budget, projecting into fiscal year 2016. While Secretary Gates had a reputation as a reformer, he had already found $450 billion of savings in the Department of Defense at that time. It is hard to say there is much fat left. Second, as the Senator from Florida pointed out, that was the last time the Department of Defense engaged in what we should do in this body, which is the budgeting for the military based on the threats we face and the strategy we need, not having a strategy that is driven by the budget. But that is not enough. As the National Defense Panel said itself, at $611 billion, that projection is not enough. Why is it not enough? Some of the threats the Senator from Florida identified. In the last 4 years, what have we seen? The Islamic State on the rise, rampaging across Iraq and Syria. Iran racing toward a nuclear weapon even as it asserts greater control and dominance over Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, and now Sanaa. We have seen Russian revisionism, invading a sovereign country in the heart of Europe, shooting a civilian airliner out of the sky in the heart of Europe, and China on the rise, developing military capabilities that are quite clearly directed against the United States and our allies in the first island chain. That is why we need this debate. That is why we need the military budget the Senator from Florida and I are proposing, because the eyes of the world are upon us, not just our enemies, but our allies as well, wondering if America will not only have the resolve to stand by its commitment but if it will have the capabilities to stand by those commitments, whoever the Commander in Chief may be. But there is one final important group whose eyes are on this institution this week. It is our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and our marines, who are wondering if the elected representatives of the people will stand with them, will provide them the resources they need to be ready, to be trained, equipped, and ready to fight our Nation's wars so they do not have to fight them in the first place. Earlier today, I had the great benefit of being able to meet with a group of Army majors and captains, the mid-career officers, just like the mid-career noncommissioned officers who are the backbone of our military. Two of those men I started officer candidate school with at Fort Benning 10 years ago this coming Friday, one of whom has been seriously injured. To a person, they all said that training is down, families are strained, operations are stressed, equipment is overused, and they wanted to know, will the Congress of the United States give them the tools they need to fight and win our country's wars? That is why I am proud to stand here with the Senator from Florida to offer this amendment and say that, yes, we will stand by them. Yes, we will make sure they are ready to fight and win our wars so they do not have to fight them in the first place. I yield back.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, since its founding in 1948, Israel has been a strong and steadfast ally to the United States in the Middle East, a region characterized by instability and violence. The U.S.-Israel relationship is built on mutual respect for common values, including a commitment to democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and ethnic and religious diversity. Last week, President Obama and other administration officials suggested a fundamental rethinking of this alliance, citing Prime Minister Netanyahu's simple restatement of fact that there can be no Palestinian State until conditions change. The Palestinian Authority must, at a minimum, eject Hamas from its governing coalition, reclaim control of the Gaza Strip, accept a demilitarized eastern border, and recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State. Further, Prime Minister Netanyahu recently reiterated these points and his support for a two-state solution in principle. In this light, any suggestion that the United States may reconsider our support for Israel--especially our support at the United Nations--is wrongheaded and shortsighted, because the United Nations, regrettably, has consistently employed a double standard in its treatment of Israel, making false allegations against Israel while, even worse, ignoring even worse behavior by other countries. The U.N. has often questioned Israel's legitimacy----

Mr. COTTON. The U.N. Human Rights Council has focused obsessively on Israel. The U.N. General Assembly has adopted 21 resolutions singling out Israel. Because of this regrettable history, my amendment lays the groundwork for a restriction of funding to the United Nations should it take unfair and discriminatory action against Israel or attempt to impose a final settlement on Israel and the P.A. My hope is this will not be necessary, but this Congress should be prepared to take actions to defend the U.S.-Israel alliance.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 481.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, this week we will debate the budget. The key part is the military budget, one part of our government where the strategy and threats must drive the budget, not vice versa. The greatest threat to our national security is a nuclear-armed Iran, and this man, Ayatollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran. Last week marked Nowruz, the beginning of the Persian New Year. On the occasion we were treated to speeches by President Obama and Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. I have to say, President Obama's speech was ill-advised. He spoke to the Iranian people directly, asking them to press their leaders and speak up in support of a nuclear agreement. Let's be clear about one thing: Iranians who speak up tend to disappear into secret prisons or wind up hanging from cranes by the neck. Worse, by acting as if public opinion matters to the Ayatollahs, President Obama is treating Iran as if it were a legitimate democracy, not a brutal theocratic dictatorship. No President should legitimize such a regime, which emboldens the dictator and undermines the Iranian people struggling under his yoke. But today I want to focus on the speech of this man, Ayatollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran. The Ayatollah gave his speech on Saturday, just 2 days ago. It may have escaped your attention, but it was not exactly a New Year's message filled with blessings of hope and peace. Ayatollah Khomeini has never been a great admirer of America, of course. He sometimes likes to refer to us as the ``Great Satan.'' During his Nowruz speech, he whipped the crowd into frenzied chants of ``death to America.'' What was his response to that chant? He said, ``Yes, certainly, death to America.'' Death to America. That was just 2 days ago. Remember, this is the leader with whom the United States is negotiating today, a theocratic tyrant who, in the middle of nuclear negotiations, chants ``death to America.'' I suggest that we rethink the wisdom of granting nuclear concessions to such a man. Unfortunately, Ayatollah Khomeini may know his negotiating partners somewhat better than they know themselves, for the Ayatollah also observed, ``Iran's enemies, particularly America, are moving forward with prudence and diplomacy. I understand them. They know what they are doing. They need these negotiations. America needs the nuclear negotiations.'' Regrettably, he is right when he says he understands his enemies, since the West, especially the President, acts as if we need these negotiations more than Iran does. After all, we had Iran on its knees in 2013 when President Obama gave Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief for merely starting negotiations. The West has extended negotiations twice in exchange for nothing. The President has also made a series of one-sided concessions from Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities to the length of a nuclear agreement. So, yes, unfortunately, Ayatollah Khomeini is correct when he says he understands his enemies. Let's consider what he said about the negotiations in this light. This past weekend, the Ayatollah emphasized, ``We are absolutely not negotiating or holding discussions with the Americans over regional or domestic issues and neither over weapons capabilities.'' Again, he is absolutely right. Iran has a ballistic missile program, which it only needs if it wants to strike the United States or our European allies, because it already has missiles capable of striking Israel or anywhere else in the Middle East. Yet we have removed its missile program from the negotiating table, just as we have removed the possible military dimensions of its nuclear program from the table, even though that is critical to understanding how far they have progressed toward a bomb. It is not just their weapons capabilities. Note that the Ayatollah also said Iran is not negotiating over regional issues. He made this point repeatedly, saying also, ``We are not negotiating with the Americans over regional issues. U.S. goals in the region are in complete contrast with our goals,'' and, ``Negotiations with the U.S. are only over the nuclear issue, and nothing else. Everyone should be aware of this.'' By ``regional issues'' and ``our goals,'' to be clear, Ayatollah Khomeini means Iran's drive for regional hegemony. The outlaw Assad regime in Syria is more beholden to Iran than ever. Iranian-aligned militants have seized the capital of Yemen, causing the American Embassy to close and our troops to evacuate. Iranian-backed and Iranian-led Shiite militias are slowly taking over Iraq, and Lebanon remains subject to Hezbollah, Iran's terrorist proxy. Despite this multifront aggression, President Obama is compartmentalizing the nuclear negotiations as if Iran's drive for hegemony and its pursuit of nuclear weapons are distinguishable and unrelated rather than springing from the regime's revolutionary nature. In fact, President Obama reportedly wrote a private letter to Ayatollah Khomeini--his fourth private letter to the Ayatollah--in part reassuring him that the United States would not undermine Assad's regime in Syria. Is it any wonder then that the Ayatollah boasts the negotiations are so limited? Is it any wonder what Ayatollah Khomeini said this weekend about sanctions relief? President Obama and Secretary Kerry keep insisting that sanctions can only be lifted gradually as Iran demonstrates compliance with any deal. The Ayatollah is having none of that. He said this past weekend: ``The lifting of the sanctions is part of the issues being negotiated and not the outcome of the negotiations.'' In other words, in exchange for the Ayatollah's ephemeral and easily reversed promises, ``sanctions must be lifted immediately following an agreement.'' That is not a splittable difference. And let's just say our side's history of one-sided concessions in these negotiations does not inspire confidence that we will preserve a sanctions regime that we took decades to assemble fully. Finally, Ayatollah Khomeini wants the world to know that Iran will not be bound in perpetuity by any deal, no matter its terms. He said: ``The Americans keep saying that there should be irreversibility in the terms Iran accepts and the decisions it makes. We do not accept that.'' The Ayatollah is happy to pocket concessions now for billions of dollars in sanctions relief and international legitimacy while preserving the option of going nuclear in the future, much as North Korea did after the 1994 Agreed Framework. I understand why Ayatollah Khomeini would want that deal, but why would we? This is the man with whom we are negotiating. Evil men rarely cloak their wicked intent, and I urge my fellow Senators and all Americans to pay careful attention to Ayatollah Khomeini's words both this past weekend and more generally. When someone chants, ``Yes, certainly, death to America,'' we should take him at his word and we should not put him on a path to a nuclear bomb. Those words are appalling enough. Let's not give him the ability to act on them. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today I want to comment on the recent election in Israel and the Obama administration's outrageous reaction to it. Two days ago Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's Likud Party won a decisive victory in the Israel election. For myself and on behalf of 3 million Arkansans, I want to offer hearty congratulations to Prime Minister Netanyahu. I have the greatest admiration for the Prime Minister's visionary and courageous statesmanship, as well as his service as a young man in his country's elite special operations forces. Prime Minister Netanyahu and his family have paid the highest price over the decades in the fight against the common enemies of Israel and the United States. Yet let me also stress that the alliance between the United States and Israel is not an alliance for this or that Israeli statesman nor this or that Israeli political party. Nor, for that matter, does the alliance depend on whom or which party controls the White House or the Congress. Rather, it is an alliance between the American people and the Israeli people, between the ultimate defender of the West and the easternmost frontier of the West. Our alliance rests on our shared experiences and principles: our Judeo-Christian heritage, respect for the natural rights of mankind, democratic self-government, market-based economics, and strong provision for our common defense. Israel's commitment to democratic elections demonstrated just this week an important distinction from many of their neighbors and why they are our closest ally in the region. Apparently, President Obama harbors such deep-seated and irrational antipathy for Prime Minister Netanyahu that he is now willing to upend this decades-long alliance. President Obama's antagonism toward Prime Minister Netanyahu is longstanding and well known. Last year, for example, anonymous administration officials used a vulgar epithet to question Prime Minister Netanyahu's courage. I will point out, as an aside, that anonymity is the Washington coward's shield, just as I am also compelled to point out that, so far as I know, neither the President nor his senior political aides served in our country's elite special operations forces, unlike Prime Minister Netanyahu. Back to my main point, in the last 48 hours, more anonymous administration officials have suggested a fundamental rethinking of the United States-Israel alliance, citing Prime Minister Netanyahu's simple restatement of fact that there can be no Palestinian State until conditions change. The Palestinian Authority must, at a minimum, eject Hamas from its governing coalition, reclaim control of the Gaza Strip, accept a demilitarized eastern border in Judea and Samaria, and recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State. As Prime Minister Netanyahu has said, if the Palestinians lay down their arms, there will be peace. But if Israel lays down its arms, there will be no Israel. The Obama administration, though, has gone off the deep end and let their personal bitterness towards the Israeli Prime Minister drive their public foreign policy toward our closest ally. Here are just a few quotes from administration officials suggesting a fundamental change in our relationship with Israel and a willingness to abandon Israel at the United Nations. One official said: ``We are signaling that [if the Israeli government's position is no longer to pursue a Palestinian state,] we're going to have to broaden the spectrum of options we pursue going forward.'' According to reports, that same official ``wouldn't rule out a modified American posture at the United Nations, where the U.S. has long fended off resolutions criticizing Israeli settlement activity and demanding its withdrawal from Palestinian territories.'' Another senior White House official said: The premise of our position internationally has been to support direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. We are now in a reality where the Israeli government no longer supports direct negotiations. Therefore we clearly have to factor that into our decisions going forward. Finally, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said: We're currently evaluating our approach. We're not going to prejudge what we would do if there was a UN action. Some observers will dismiss these comments as the petulant response of a President and political operatives who didn't get their way in the elections this week. But there is something much more worrisome underway. While Prime Minister Netanyahu won a decisive victory, he still has just started assembling a governing majority coalition. These kinds of quotes from Israel's most important ally could very well startle some of the smaller parties and their leaders with whom Prime Minister Netanyahu is currently in negotiations. This raises the question, of course, if the administration intends to undermine Prime Minister Netanyahu's efforts to assemble a coalition by suggesting a change to our longstanding policy of supporting Israel's position with the United Nations. After all, if you were an elected leader in Israel's parliament, you surely would worry about the United States refusing to exercise its veto at the U.N. Security Council. Consider the United Nations' long and dark history of anti-Semitism. The U.N. Human Rights Council has condemned Israel in 45 resolutions since its creation in 2006. In 2013, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a total of 21 resolutions singling out Israel for disapproval and just 4 resolutions for the rest of the world. Fifty percent of all emergency special sessions of the General Assembly over the last six decades were convened to denounce Israel. Meanwhile, no emergency special session has been called for any other state in over 30 years. Given this history and the stakes here and abroad, let me speak bluntly so there can be no misunderstanding. Under no circumstances will I or this Congress allow the Obama administration to abandon Israel to the United Nations or any other international institution or to change fundamentally the terms of our alliance with Israel. This administration's latest outrageous pronouncement is even more difficult to understand as they simultaneously coddle the terrorist regime in Iran. The people of Israel should know the American people remain in solidarity with them in their quest to exist peacefully with their neighbors and that we will not allow them to be thrown to the jackals at the United Nations--a characterization made famous by a past Member of this body, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I call on all Members of this body, including my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to join with me in one voice supporting our ally Israel against the jackals. In the coming days--perhaps as soon as the debate over the budget resolution next week--I will propose legislation that reaffirms the longstanding policy of the United States to continue to defend Israel against attacks at the United Nations and other international agencies. I urge all Members of this body, including my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have a long history of supporting Israel, to join me in supporting such legislation. Further, should the United Nations, its subordinate agencies, the International Criminal Court or any other international agency take adverse action against Israel, I will consider introducing legislation to restrict U.S. funding for the offending agency. Finally, if the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations does not exercise the American veto against any anti-Israel resolution, I will also consider introducing similar legislation to restrict funding to the Ambassador's office. For decades, the relationship between Israel and the United States has transcended political and personal differences. Our shared interests were enough to overcome any ideology or personal disagreement, but I fear mutual respect is of little concern to this administration. The President and all those senior officials around him should carefully consider the diplomatic and security consequences of their words. This Congress certainly will.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I speak for the first time from the Senate floor with a simple message: The world is growing ever more dangerous and our defense spending is wholly inadequate to confront the danger. To be exact: During the last four or five years the world has grown gravely darker. . . . We have steadily disarmed, partly with a sincere desire to give a lead to other countries, and partly through the severe financial pressure of the time. But a change must now be made. We must not continue longer on a course in which we alone are growing weaker while every other nation is growing stronger. I wish I could take credit for those eloquent and ominous words, but I cannot. Winston Churchill sounded that warning in 1933, as Adolph Hitler had taken power in Germany. Tragically, Great Britain and the West did not heed this warning when they might have strangled that monster in his crib. Rather than let the locusts continue to eat away at the common defense, the Axis Powers were stronger and the West weaker, conciliating with and appeasing them, hoping their appetite for conquest and death might be sated. As we all know, however, that appetite only grew until it launched the most terrible war in human history. Today, perhaps more tragically because we ought to benefit from those lessons of history, the United States is again engaged in something of a grand experiment of the kind we saw in the 1930s. As then, military strength is seen in many quarters as a cause of military adventurism. Strength and confidence in the defense of our interests, alliances, and liberties is not seen to deter aggression but to provoke it. Rather than confront our adversaries, our President apologizes for our supposed transgressions. The administration is harsh and unyielding to our friends, soothing and suffocating to our enemies. The President minimizes the threat we confront, in the face of territory seized, weapons of mass destruction used and proliferated, and innocents murdered. The concrete expression of this experiment is our collapsing defense budget. For years, we have systematically underfunded our military, marrying this philosophy of retreat with a misplaced understanding of our larger budgetary burdens. We have strained our fighting forces today to the breaking point, even as we have eaten away at our investments in future forces, creating our own ``locust years,'' as Churchill would have put it. Meanwhile, our long-term debt crisis looks hardly any better, even as we ask our troops to shoulder the burden of deficit reduction, rather than shoulder the arms necessary to keep the peace. The results of this experiment, it should come as no surprise, are little different from the results from the same experiment in the 1930s. American weakness and leading from behind have produced nothing but a more dangerous world. When we take stock of that world and our position in it, there can be no doubt a change must now be made. An alarm should be sounding in our ears. Our enemies, sensing weakness and hence opportunity, have become steadily more aggressive. Our allies, uncertain of our commitment and capability, have begun to conclude that they must look out for themselves, even where it is unhelpful to stability and order. Our military, suffering from years of neglect, has seen its relative strength decline to historic levels. Let's start with the enemy who attacked us on September 11: radical Islamists. During his last campaign, the President was fond of saying Al Qaeda was ``on the run.'' In a fashion, I suppose this was true. Al Qaeda was and is running wild around the world, now in control of more territory than ever before. This global network of Islamic jihadists continues to plot attacks against America and the West. They sow the seeds of conflict in failed states and maintain active affiliates throughout Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, the Greater Middle East, and South Asia. Further, Al Qaeda in Iraq was let off the mat when the President disregarded its commanders' best military judgment and withdrew all troops from Iraq in 2011. Given a chance to regroup, it morphed into the Islamic State, which now controls much of Syria and Iraq. The Islamic State cuts the heads off of Americans, burns alive hostages from allied countries, executes Christians, and enslaves women and girls. The Islamic State aspires and actively plots to attack us here at home, whether by foreign plots or by recruiting a lone wolf in our midst. The President's suggestions, in other words, that the war on terror is over or ending, are far from true. Indeed, the Director of National Intelligence recently testified that ``when the final accounting is done, 2014 will have been the most lethal year for global terrorism in the 45 years such data has been compiled.'' Yet the President will not even speak our enemy's name. The threat of radical Islamic terrorism brings us to Iran, the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism. My objections to the ongoing nuclear negotiations are well known and need not be rehearsed at length here. I will simply note that the deal foreshadowed by the President, allowing Iran to have uranium enrichment capabilities and accepting an expiration date on any agreement--to quote Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu--``doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb.'' If you think, as I do, the Islamic State is dangerous, a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic is even more so. Recall, after all, what Iran already does without the bomb. Iran is an outlaw regime that has been killing Americans for 35 years, from Lebanon to Saudi Arabia, to Iraq. Unsurprisingly, Iran is only growing bolder and more aggressive as America retreats from the Middle East. Ayatollah Khamenei continues to call for Israel's elimination. Iranian- backed Shiite militias now control much of Iraq, led by Qassem Suleimani, the commander of the Quds Force, a man with the blood of hundreds of American solders on his hands. Iran continues to prop up Bashar al-Assad's outlaw regime in Syria. Iranian-aligned Shiite militants recently seized Sana'a, the capital of Yemen. Hezbollah remains Iran's cat's paw in Lebanon. Put simply, Iran dominates or controls five capitals in its drive for regional hegemony. Moreover, Iran has rapidly increased the size and capability of its ballistic missile arsenal, recently launching new a satellite. Just 2 weeks ago, Iran blew up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier in naval exercises and publicized it with great fanfare. Iran does all of these things without the bomb. Just imagine what it will do with the bomb. Imagine the United States further down the road of appeasement, largely defenseless against this tyranny. You do not have to imagine much, though; simply look to North Korea. Because of a naive and failed nuclear agreement, that outlaw state acquired nuclear weapons. Now America is largely handcuffed, watching as this rogue regime builds more bombs and missiles capable of striking the U.S. homeland and endangering our allies. But perhaps an even more obvious result of this experiment with retreat is the resurgence or Russia. The President aspired for a reset with Russia and made one-sided concessions such as withdrawing ballistic missile defenses from Poland and the Czech Republic. So Vladimir Putin saw these concessions as weakness and continues to violate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The West refused to assist the new Ukranian President, so Putin invaded and stole Crimea. The Western response was modest sanctions. So Russian-supplied rebels shot a civilian airliner out of the sky in the heart of Europe. The President dithers in providing defensive weapons to Ukraine, so Putin reignites the war, takes Debaltseve, and stages outside Mariupol. When bombs and bullets were called for, blankets were rushed to the frontline. That is just in Ukraine. Putin is also testing NATO's resolve. Russia has tested a ballistic missile with multiple warheads, designed to threaten our European allies in direct violation of the INF treaty. Russian bombers recently flew over the English Channel, disrupting British civil aviation. Estonia asserts that Russia kidnapped an Estonian security officer on its Russian border. And Russia continues to intimidate and harass other NATO partners such as Sweden, Moldova, and Georgia. Finally, Russia's ability to continue its aggression will only grow because its defense spending has more than quadrupled over the last 15 years. Moreover, the Russian military today is qualitatively better than the old Soviet military, despite its smaller size, as Admiral Bill Gortney, Commander of NORAD testified just last week. Some say that falling oil prices will restrain Putin. In fact, Russia's Finance Minister recently announced 10 percent across-the- board budget cuts to all departments of their government--except defense. This should give us some insights into Putin's intentions and ambitions. Among major nation-state competitors, Russia's military buildup is exceeded only by China's. Over the same period of the last 15 years, China's military spending has increased by 600 percent. Moreover, the bulk of the spending is directed quite clearly against the United States as China pursues its anti-access and area denial strategy. This strategy is designed to keep American forces outside the so-called first island chain and give China regional hegemony from the Korean Peninsula to the Indonesian archipelago. Thus, China is on a spending spree for more submarines, aircraft carriers, antiship ballistic missiles, and other air and naval systems. The impact of China's rapid military expansion is clear. China has challenged Japan's control of the Senkaku Islands and purported to establish an exclusive air defense zone over the East China Sea. By expanding its activities in the Spratlys, China is precipitating a confrontation with the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Taiwan. Further, China's repressive actions against protesters in Hong Kong only serve to undermine Taiwanese support of reunification, which itself could spark further Chinese aggression. All of this is to say nothing of China's cyber theft and economic espionage against American interests or its atrocious record on human rights. While America has retreated, not only have our enemies been on the march, our allies, anxious for years about American resolve, now worry increasingly about American capabilities. With the enemy on their borders, many have begun to conclude they have no choice but to take matters into their own hands, sometimes in ways unhelpful to our interests. Even our core NATO allies appear unsettled by our recent experiment with retreat. The French intervened in Mali to confront Islamic insurgents, but without adequate advance coordination, they quickly found themselves in need of emergency logistical support from our Air Force. Turkey just announced a new missile defense system that will not be interoperable with NATO systems. Greece has a new governing coalition that is hinting at greater cooperation with Russia. The picture is no better outside NATO. Japan has significantly increased its defense budget because of a rising China and may feel compelled to reinterpret its post-war constitutional ban on overseas ``collective self-defense.'' Saudi Arabia just entered a nuclear pact with South Korea, likely a response to Iran's nuclear program. Similarly, the Persian Gulf States have increased defense spending by 44 percent in the last 2 years. While we should encourage our partners to carry their share of the defense load, the Sunni states are building up their defenses, not to help us, but because they fear we won't help them against Iran. We should never take our allies for granted, but we also shouldn't take for granted the vast influence our security guarantees give us with our allies' behavior. Germany and Japan are not nuclear powers today because of our nuclear umbrella. Israel didn't retaliate against Hussein's Scud missile attacks in the gulf war, and thus we preserved the war coalition because we asked them for restraint and committed significant resources to hunting down Scud launchers. This kind of influence has been essential for American security throughout the postwar period, yet it has begun to wane as our allies doubt our commitment and our capabilities. Make no mistake, our military capabilities have declined. In recent years, we have dramatically underfunded our military to the detriment of our security. To fully understand the military aspect of our experiment with retreat, some historical perspective is needed. Defense spending reached its peak in 2008, when the base budget and wartime spending combined was $760 billion. Incredibly, the total defense budget plummeted by $200 billion in the last year. Today, defense spending is only 16 percent of all Federal spending, a historic low rivaled only by the post-Cold War period. To give some context, during the Cold War, defense spending regularly accounted for 60 percent of Federal spending. But if we don't end the experiment of retreat, this President will leave office with a mere 12 percent of all Federal dollars spent on defense. The picture is no prettier when cast in the light of our economy. In the early Cold War, defense spending was approximately 9 percent of gross domestic product. Today, it sits at a paltry 3.5 percent. But our defense budget isn't just about numbers and arithmetic. It is about our ability to accomplish the mission of defending our country from all threats. The consequences of these cuts are real, concrete, and immediate. As former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta explained, these cuts to defense spending have put us on the path to the smallest Army since before World War II, the smallest Navy since World War, and the smallest Air Force ever. Let's look more closely at each service. Our Army has shrunk by nearly 100,000 troops. The Army has lost 13 combat brigades, and only a third of the remaining brigades are fully ready to meet America's threats. Further, investments in modernization have fallen by 25 percent. If we continue on the current path, the Army will lose another 70,000 soldiers, and every modernization program designed to preserve the Army's technological advantage will be eviscerated. The Navy, meanwhile, has had to cancel five ship deployments and significantly delay the deployment of a carrier strike group. The Navy's mission requires it to keep three carrier strike groups and amphibious readiness groups prepared to respond to a major crisis within 30 years, but the Navy can only fulfill a third of its mission because of cuts to maintenance and training. Similarly, the Air Force is less than one-third of its size 25 years ago. Moreover, the Air Force depends upon modernization to preserve its technological edge, perhaps more than any other service, but current funding levels could require cancellation of airborne-refueling tankers and surveillance aircraft, set back fighter and nuclear weapons modernization, and shorten the life of tactical airlift and weapons recovery programs. Nor are these impacts just immediate; they will be felt long into the future. Key programs, once divested, will be difficult to restart. Manufacturing competencies will be lost, the skilled-labor pool will shrink, and the defense manufacturing base will atrophy. Today's weapons systems and equipment will begin to age and break down. Our troops won't be able to train, and their weapons and equipment won't be ready to fight. In short, we will have a hollow force incapable of defending our national security. What is to be done then? Our experiment with retreat must end. This Congress must again recognize that our national security is the first priority of this government. Our national security strategy must drive our military budget rather than the budget setting our strategy. The military budget must reflect the threats we face rather than the budget defining those threats. In the face of these threats and after years of improvident defense cuts, we must significantly increase our defense spending. After hundreds of billions of dollars of these cuts, the base defense budget next year is set to be only $498 billion. That is wholly inadequate. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter recently testified: ``I want to be clear about this--parts of our nation's defense strategy cannot be executed under sequestration.'' All four of the military service chiefs, in addition, have testified that these cuts put American lives at risk. The President has proposed a modest increase to $534 billion, which is better than nothing. Senators John McCain and Jack Reed have called for the full repeal of sequestration, which would raise the base defense budget to $577 billion. I applaud and thank these veterans of both the Senate and our military for this correct and clear-eyed recommendation. Yet I also want to highlight their support for the recommendation of the National Defense Panel, which estimated that base defense spending for fiscal year 2016 should be $611 billion at a minimum. The National Defense Panel was a bipartisan group of eminent national security experts convened by Congress to analyze the Quadrennial Defense Review. They unanimously concluded that then-Secretary of Defense Bob Gates' fiscal year 2012 budget was the proper starting point to analyze our current defense needs--for at least two reasons. First, Secretary Gates had already initiated significant defense cuts and reforms totaling $478 billion. It is hard to say, given those efforts, that his 2012 budget had left much fat in the Department of Defense. Second, Secretary Gates and the Department assembled and submitted this budget in late January 2010 and early 2011, or just months before the Budget Control Act with its draconian defense cuts became law. That budget, therefore, was the last time the Defense Department was able to submit a threat- and strategy-based budget, instead of the budget-based strategies we have seen over the last 4 years. This logic is compelling, even unassailable. Thus, I agree we should spend not merely $611 billion on the base defense budget next year but substantially more than that. After all, as we have seen earlier, and as the National Defense Panel has noted, the world has become much more dangerous since 2011. Islamic terrorism, Iranian aggression, Russian revisionism, and Chinese interventionism have all worsened--to say nothing of other challenges. The $611 billion is necessary, but it is not sufficient. What then should our defense budget be next year? I will readily admit we cannot be sure how much is needed above $611 billion. As the National Defense Panel explained, ``because of the highly constrained and unstable budget environment under which the Department has been working,'' the Quadrennial Review ``is not adequate as a comprehensive long-term planning document.'' Thus, the panel recommends that Congress ``should ask the Department for such a plan, which should be developed without undue emphasis on current budgetary restraints.'' I endorse this recommendation. In the meantime, though, even if we can't specify a precise dollar amount, we can identify the critical needs on which to spend the additional money. First, our military faces a readiness crisis from budget cuts and a decade of war. Our young soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are the greatest weapons systems our country could ever have, but they need training--live-fire exercises, flight time, and so forth. Their weapons, equipment, and vehicles need maintenance and reset. If we faced a major crisis today, our troops would no doubt suffer more casualties and greater likelihood of mission failure. Of course, they know all of this, and morale suffers because of it. Second and related, our military is shrinking rapidly to historically small levels. This decline must be reversed. Our Navy probably needs 350-plus ships, not a budget-dictated 260 ships. The Army needs to maintain its pre-9/11 end strength of 490,000 Active-Duty soldiers, as the Marine Corps needs 182,000 marines. The Air Force needs more aircraft of virtually every type--bomber, fighter, airlift, and surveillance. It is the deepest folly to reduce our military below its 1990s size as the world has grown considerably more dangerous since that quiet decade. Third, we should increase research, development, and procurement funds to ensure our military retains its historic technological advantage, particularly as our adversaries gain more access to advanced, low-cost technologies. This should start with the essential tools of command and control: cyber space, space, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. The Air Force needs to modernize its bomber and mobility aircraft, in particular. The Navy needs to continue to improve its surface-ship and especially its submarine capabilities. These critical priorities will no doubt be expensive, probably tens of billions of dollars more than the $611 billion baseline suggested by the National Defense Panel. Because the massive cuts to our defense budget resulted in part from record deficits, the question arises, however: Can we afford all of this? The answer is yes--without question and without doubt, yes. The facts here, as we have seen, are indisputable. The defense budget has been slashed by hundreds of billions of dollars over the last 6 years. The defense budget is only 16 percent of all Federal spending, a historic low and heading much lower if we don't act. And using the broadest measure of affordability and national priorities, defense spending as a percentage of our economy, last year we spent only 3.5 percent of our national income on defense, which is approaching historic lows and may surpass them by 2019. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that our military needs $700 billion in the coming year, an immediate increase of $200 billion. To some, that may sound staggering and unrealistic, yet it would still be barely 4 percent of our economy--a full 1 percent lower than the 5 percent from which President Reagan started his buildup. If we increased spending merely to that level--which both President Reagan and a Democratic House considered dangerously low--we would spend $885 billion on defense next year. Furthermore, trying to balance the budget through defense cuts is both counterproductive and impossible. First, the threats we face will eventually catch up with us, as they did on September 11, and we will have no choice but to increase our defense budget. When we do, it will cost more to achieve the same end state of readiness and modernization than it would have without the intervening cuts. This was the lesson we learned in the 1980s after the severe cuts to defense in the 1970s. Second, we need a healthy, growing economy to generate the government revenue necessary to fund our military and balance the budget. In our globalized world, our domestic prosperity depends heavily on the world economy, which, of course, requires stability and order. Who provides that stability and order? The U.S. military. Finally, in the short term, ephemeral gains in deficit reduction from defense cuts merely mask the genuine driver of our long-term debt crisis: retirement and health care programs. The Budget Control Act ultimately failed to control these programs--a failure not only of promises made to our citizens but also because the deficit-reduction default became annual discretionary funding, particularly the defense budget. In the 4 years since, relative deficits have declined, alleviating the imperative to reform these programs yet doing nothing to solve their long-term insolvency and our debt crisis. A better question to ask is: Can we afford to continue our experiment in retreat? I suggest we cannot. Imagine a world in which we continue our current trajectory, where America remains in retreat and our military loses even more of its edge. What would such a world look like? It is not a pretty picture. Russia might soon possess the entire north shore of the Black Sea. An emboldened Putin, sensing Western weakness for what it is, could be tempted to replay his Ukrainian playbook in Estonia or Latvia, forcing NATO into war or obsolescence. China could escalate its island conflicts in the East and South China Seas. Without an adequate American response--or worse, with China denying American forces access to those seas--countries as diverse as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines would feel compelled to conciliate or confront regional stability. While North Korea already possesses nuclear weapons, Iran appears to be on the path to a nuclear bomb, whether it breaks or upholds a potential nuclear agreement. Not only might Iran use its weapon, but its nuclear umbrella would also embolden its drive for regional hegemony. Moreover, Iran could provide its terrorist proxies with nuclear materials. And does anyone doubt that Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states will follow Iran down this path? Nuclear tripwires may soon ring the world's most volatile region, increasing the risk of nuclear war, as well as the possibility that Islamist insurgents might seize nuclear materials if they can topple the right government. Islamic terrorists, meanwhile, will continue to rampage throughout Syria and Iraq, aspiring always for more attacks in Europe and on American soil. Emboldened by America's retreat and by their own battlefield successes, they will continue to attract thousands of hateful fighters from around the world, all eager for the chance to kill Americans. All these are nightmare scenarios, but sadly not unrealistic ones. The alternative, however, is not war. No leader--whether a President, a general or platoon leader--wishes to put his troops in harm's way. War is an awful thing, and it takes an unimaginable toll on the men and women who fight it and their families. But the best way to avoid war is to be willing and prepared to fight a war in the first place. That is the alternative: military strength and moral confidence in the defense of America's national security. Our enemies and allies alike must know that aggressors will pay an unspeakable price for challenging the United States. The best way to impose that price is global military dominance. When it comes to war, narrow margins are not enough, for they are nothing more than an invitation to war. We must have such hegemonic strength that no sane adversary would ever imagine challenging the United States. ``Good enough'' is not and will never be good enough. We can look to a very recent historic example to prove this point. Just 25 years ago, a dominant American military ended the Cold War without firing a shot. If we return to the dominance of that era, aggressive despots such as Vladimir Putin, rising powers such as China, and state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran's Ayatollahs will think long and hard before crossing us. And while we may not deter terrorist groups such as the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, and Hezbollah, we will kill their adherents more effectively, while also sending a needed lesson to their sympathizers: Join and you too will die. Bringing about this future by being prepared for war will no doubt take a lot of money. But what could be a higher priority than a safe and prosperous America, leading a stable and orderly world? What better use of precious taxpayer dollars? What more lessons from history do we need? I began with Churchill's prescient words from 1933. Alas, the West did not take his advice, did not rearm and prepare to deter Nazi Germany. The predictable result was the German remilitarization of the Rhineland and the long march to war. Now let me close with his regretful words from 1936: The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences. Churchill later called World War II the unnecessary war because it could have been stopped so easily with Western strength and confidence in the 1930s. I know many of you in this Chamber stand with me, and I humbly urge you all--Democrat and Republican alike--to join in rebuilding our common defense, so that we will not face our own unnecessary war, our own period of consequences. I will now yield the floor, but I will never yield in the defense of America's national security on any front or at any time.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Emergency Afghan Allies Extension Act, which would add 1,000 new visas for Afghans who served American troops. This program was designed to provide safe refuge to the many Afghans who put their lives on the line and served with our troops in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. I served personally with several Afghans who literally bled for us and who still aspire to immigrate to America in conformity with our laws--exactly the kind of immigrants which we welcome. This program is also critical to our national security and to our troops who, in the future, will again serve around the world and need support from local nationals. If we don't stand with these brave Afghans now, how will our troops in the future get the support they need? Indeed, many Afghans who served with American forces are now hunted by the Taliban and other terrorist groups. Adding a thousand visas this year may be the difference between life and death for some of these brave Afghans, particularly as America withdraws our troops from that country. Friends, colleagues, I urge you to support this bill because it is in our national security interests to keep our promises and protect our allies, and it is the right thing to do.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I want to honor the life of longtime Arkansas police officer and Law Enforcement Training Academy instructor, Mark Williams. Born and raised in El Dorado, Mark began his law enforcement career in his hometown with the El Dorado Police Department in 1977, serving as a patrolman, detective, and sergeant. Mark also served as a supervisor in the Hope Police Department's Patrol Division before joining the faculty of the Arkansas Law Enforcement Training Academy in 1994, where he trained new police officers until his retirement in 2013. Mark's commitment to Arkansas didn't end there. He was also a gifted musician, who served as an Artist in Education, playing his guitar to entertain and educate children across south Arkansas. I extend my deepest condolences to Mark's wife, children, and grandchildren on their loss. May they find comfort in knowing that Mark's legacy lives on with the thousands of Arkansas police officers he trained over nearly two decades at the academy and in the countless children and Arkansans he inspired with his music.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would simply say that the 149 terrorists left at Guantanamo Bay are not goat herders, they are not couriers, and they are not even foot soldiers. They are bomb- makers, they are commanders, and they are intelligence experts who have killed American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines around the world. Yes, there have been releases in the past, but many of those release were of less dangerous terrorists. The Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay says 120 out of 149 of the remaining detainees are at high risk to return to the battlefield. That is over 80 percent. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote to put a pause on the President's lawless release of the Taliban Five from Guantanamo Bay. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COTTON. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. COTTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would very simply prohibit the use of funds in this legislation from being used to transfer detainees at Guantanamo Bay to their country of origin or any foreign country. There are two main reasons why this amendment is necessary, both related to the President's action in trading five senior Taliban commanders for Private Bowe Bergdahl. First, he has proven that section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act is inadequate; and, second, we need to review conditions of the release of the Taliban Five. On the first point, this Congress granted the President, last year, expanded authority to release detainees from Guantanamo Bay, conditioned on 30 days' notice to the Congress, as well as certain conditions. The President abused that authority by releasing the Taliban Five without notification, even to the so-called Gang of Eight, the senior leaders of both parties in both Chambers, the senior leaders of both Intelligence Committees in both Chambers. The President, having duly signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law with those restrictions, but then did not obey those restrictions, did not claim his core article II constitutional powers to override them. Therefore, it is imperative on our institution to reclaim, on principle, our constitutional authority. Second, the Taliban Five have been released into the country of Qatar. We need to take a year to review the conditions of those released. As many of you have seen, they appear to be moving about freely in the country of Qatar without any restrictions on their movement, absent the requirement that they remain in Qatar. This would allow them--senior commanders, mind you--to communicate freely with Taliban on the battlefield against our troops in Afghanistan. We should be able to take at least 1 year to see if such conditions are adequate to support the release of such hardened terrorist commanders. What does this amendment not do? This is not a permanent ban on transfers of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, nor does it authorize indefinite detention. It simply says we will take a 1-year pause to evaluate the conditions under which five senior Taliban commanders were released and to reassert our constitutional prerogatives. Who are these detainees? They are not goat herders who were innocently swept up by the American military, nor are they foot soldiers or couriers. These are the worst of the worst, 149 hardened terrorists, which Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay says 120 of are high risk to return to the battle. In fact, just this week, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee was arrested in Spain, recruiting for the Islamic States of Iraq and Syria, the terrorist group that is currently rampaging through both Syria and Iraq. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, stand up for your honor as a coequal branch, stand up for our national security, and stand up for the safety of your constituents. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. COTTON. Mr. Chairman, with due respect to the gentleman from Indiana on numerous points, this is the fifth restriction that this Congress has undertaken. If it were to pass, it simply shows the judgment of this Congress, the people's representatives, that these remaining 149 detainees are too dangerous to be cavalierly released into a country without adequate constraints or without notification to Congress, as the law that the President signed demanded. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. Speaker, a couple of lessons I learned in the Army were you move to the sound of gunfire, and the most important step in the troop-leading procedures is to supervise the execution of your orders. When Americans were fighting for their lives in Benghazi, Barack Obama did neither. He sent no Quick Reaction Force, and he didn't even stay in the Situation Room to supervise the execution of his orders. We expect more from lieutenants in the Army than our President gave us that night. For 2 years, he has covered up this failure of leadership by stonewalling. Not anymore. We will now get to the truth. But what do our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say to this? They express great outrage at politicizing this matter. When I was leading troops in Iraq in 2006, men and women who were being shot at and blown up by al Qaeda, where was the outrage as they fund-raised endlessly off the Iraq war? Where was the outrage as they viciously attacked our commanders? Where was the outrage when they said that soldiers were war criminals? Where was the outrage when they said the war was lost? Where was the outrage when they said that only high school dropouts join the Army? Forgive me if I don't join my Democratic colleagues in sharing their fake outrage. Four Americans lost their lives that night in Benghazi. They deserve justice, and the American people deserve the truth. One other lesson I learned in the Army is we leave no man behind, and we will not leave these four men behind.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I ask the Members of this House and all Americans to lift up Arkansas in their prayers as we recover from the storms that devastated much of central Arkansas on Sunday evening. Fifteen people lost their lives in these storms, and many more saw their homes and neighborhoods destroyed. The communities of Mayflower and Vilonia, vibrant, thriving towns, were particularly hard-hit. I want to thank the first responders and all those on the ground in Arkansas who continue to assist with rescue and recovery operations. We are deeply grateful for your service. I know my sorrow and grief for the devastation and loss of life is shared by all Arkansans and all Americans. We have a long road ahead of us, but Arkansans are a tough, hardworking people, and together we will come out stronger.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I want to recognize Colonel Joseph Buche, who will retire next month after 30 years of commissioned service in the United States Army. Colonel Buche was born and spent the first 12 years of his life in Fayetteville, Arkansas, where he attended St. Joseph's Elementary School. His father taught electrical engineering at the University of Arkansas, and Colonel Buche still remembers walking from his family's home down to Razorback Stadium to see President Nixon arrive for the 1969 Texas-Arkansas football game, also known as the game of the century. While it didn't end well for the Razorbacks, few Arkansans who were alive then have forgotten that day. Following his father's death, Colonel Buche moved with his family to Wisconsin, where he received a 4-year Army ROTC scholarship from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He was commissioned as an infantryman upon his graduation with a bachelor of science in 1984 and began what would become an exemplary career in the United States Army. As a lieutenant and captain, Colonel Buche was a platoon leader and commanded four infantry platoon companies. Colonel Buche also served in Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom, as well as with the Old Guard at Arlington National Cemetery. His military honors include the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star with oakleaf cluster, two Combat Infantryman Badges, and the Ranger tab. On a personal note, Colonel Buche was my commander while I was stationed at the Old Guard in Arlington National Cemetery in 2007 and 2008 and while I was deployed to Afghanistan in 2008 and 2009. He set the highest standard for leadership, professionalism, and duty for every Old Guard soldier. Finally, I also want to thank his wife, C.J., and their two daughters, Megan and Shelby. Military families carry a heavy load, too, and they also sacrifice much for our country. C.J., Megan, and Shelby endured many days without their loving husband and dad, all so he could stand guard on the front lines of freedom around the world on our behalf. We are grateful to them. On behalf of the United States Congress and a grateful Nation, I want to thank Colonel Buche and his family for their service and wish him all the best in retirement.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Yesterday, I introduced the LOCAL Act, a bill allowing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to restore joint management programs with local nonprofit organizations to construct, operate, and maintain recreational facilities at lakes and reservoirs across the country. Despite years of successful operation, the Corps recently determined they lacked the authority to continue these joint management programs and are in the process of suspending all local partnerships. Arkansans know better than anyone how to manage our lands, and cuts to the Corps' budget shouldn't dictate our ability to enjoy these facilities. For years, these partnerships have allowed local groups, like the Friends of Lake Ouachita, to successfully maintain recreational facilities across our State. Arkansas is known as the Natural State. One of our greatest points of pride is access to public lands and water. The LOCAL Act will ensure that facilities like Lake Ouachita and Beaver Lake remain easily accessible to future generations.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize Jeff Teague, president of the Teague Auto Group in El Dorado, Arkansas, who was recently named Time magazine's Auto Dealer of the Year. Awarded annually, this award recognizes the auto dealer who demonstrates exceptional business performance and distinguished community service. Jeff and his father opened their first dealership as partners 33 years ago in Walnut Ridge, Arkansas. Through hard work and determination, they built their dealership into a thriving family business. But more than a businessman, Jeff is also a dedicated member of the El Dorado community. He is involved with Arkansas Baptist Children's Homes and Family Ministries, the Main Street El Dorado Music Festival, Union County 4-H, the Salvation Army, the South Arkansas Historical Foundation, and the Boys and Girls Club of El Dorado. I want to offer Jeff and his family my congratulations on this honor and thank him for all he does for the community of El Dorado.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the nearly 525 employees at Aerojet Rocketdyne's Camden, Arkansas, production facility and their upcoming achievement of the milestone shipment of their 2,000th PAC-3 Solid Rocket Motor and 400,000th PAC-3 Altitude Control Motor to Lockheed Martin and the United States Army. Aerojet Rocketdyne is a world-recognized aerospace and defense leader principally serving the missile, space propulsion, and armaments markets. This most significant milestone will be commemorated with a celebration ceremony held in Camden, Arkansas, on Thursday, December 5, 2013. The PAC-3 missile, powered by Aerojet Rocketdyne propulsion, is a high velocity interceptor that defeats incoming targets by direct, body-to-body impact. The ``hit-to-kill'' PAC-3 missile is the world's most advanced, capable, and powerful terminal air defense missile, and when deployed in a Patriot battery, significantly increases the Patriot system's firepower. It is capable of defeating the entire threat of tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs), cruise missiles, and aircraft. One hundred percent effective in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the PAC-3 missile is a quantum leap ahead of any other air defense missile when it comes to the ability to protect the warfighter. Since 1998, Aerojet Rocketdyne has manufactured the PAC-3 SRM and ACM rocket motors at its Camden facility. The PAC-3 rocket motors are a noteworthy element of Aerojet Rocketdyne's industry-leading tactical propulsion portfolio produced in Camden, generating significant employment opportunities for the area. On the occasion of this milestone, I am proud to recognize the dedicated, hardworking employees of Aerojet Rocketdyne in Camden and their achievements so far. These Arkansans are working hard to ensure our men and women in uniform have the resources they need to carry out their missions effectively and quickly, and they deserve our sincere appreciation.