Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, if I could finish my thought, what I would suggest to Senator Lee is that the prudent thing for us to do is to have another hearing because the last one we had was in 2012. Listen to the FBI Director and Homeland Security Secretary and see why they feel so strongly about homegrown terrorism and see if we can find a way to move forward. But what the Senator from Utah and others have said-- there is not one American being held as an enemy combatant today. There are thousands of people who have helped us in Afghanistan who will be killed if we don't do something about it. The Senator from Utah and I will never agree on this issue, and I respect my friend greatly. I believe we are fighting a war, not a crime. I will never agree that because you are an American citizen, you can collaborate with the enemy and work actively with Al Qaeda and ISIL to attack your homeland and not be held under the law of war, which we have been doing for decades in other wars. I do believe in due process. As the law is written today, if our military or intelligence community picks up someone they believe is collaborating with ISIL or Al Qaeda, someone covered as an enemy combatant, they can be held, but they can be held only if a Federal judge allows the continued holding. You do get a hearing under the habeas corpus statute. The government has to prove you are, in fact, an enemy combatant. The last time we had this debate, it was suggested this was a slippery slope. What prevents you from being held as an enemy combatant if you went to a tea party rally? That was pretty offensive to me then, and it is really offensive to me now. The idea that somehow American soil is not part of the battlefield blows me away.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will in a moment. Let me make this real to you. We will have a big debate. I would love to have a hearing. This guy pictured here is Anwar al-Awlaki. He is dead, thank God. He was an American citizen and head of Al Qaeda in Yemen. President Obama put him on the kill list, and we killed him. That is good. Well done, Mr. President. If you are an American citizen and you go to Yemen and join Al Qaeda, I hope you get killed too. If we capture you, you will have your day in court to argue that you are not part of Al Qaeda, that we have it all wrong, and the government has to prove that you in fact are. But if the government can make that argument, the last thing I want somebody like this to hear is ``Hey, you have a right to remain silent.'' I don't want these people to remain silent; I want to hold them as enemy combatants and gather intelligence. I don't want to torture them. I don't want to beat them up. But I don't want to put them in Federal court and act like it is not part of the war. I don't want to criminalize the war; I want to make sure you have due process consistent with being at war. What Senator Lee and others are suggesting is that if this guy made it to America, came back to his homeland, and we shot him on the steps of the Capitol and he survived, we would have to read him his Miranda rights and we couldn't hold him to find out under military interrogation what he knows about this attack and future attacks. So what you do when you go down this road is you stop the ability to gather intelligence at a time we need more information, not less. I am not going to belabor this point any more. As you can tell, I strongly disapprove of having this debate now without another hearing, going down this road, because so much has changed. And I hope you respect where I am coming from. I respect your passion. I hope you respect my passion on this. Here is the point: I didn't get all I want, and I am not going to stop the process for others who have done a good thing. Here is what you are going to do because you are worried about something that is not real at this moment because nobody is in custody. You are objecting to finding a solution for something that is real for the moment. Senator Moran, what you are worried about is real. So all I am asking is that before we can get to yes, let's get to yes, and if you can't get everything you want because somebody is passionate on the other side, don't stop everybody else from getting what they want. That, to me, just makes a stronger country, a better Senate. As you know, I respect you, but I am never going to agree with you, ever, because I have been a military lawyer for 33 years. What you are saying makes no sense to me. I am sure you are sincere about it. I think it weakens the ability to defend this Nation at a time when we need all the defenses we can get. I am not suggesting that you would be rounded up by your government, thrown in jail, accused of being an Al Qaeda or ISIL member, and nobody ever hears from you again and you never get a chance to speak. That is not the law, and it has never been the law. I plead with the Senator, please, please, let's take this issue to the Judiciary Committee where it belongs. Let's have a hearing, mark up the bill in Judiciary, and then do whatever you want to do. Don't stop these two amendments. That is all I am asking.

Mr. GRAHAM. I object to the modification.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the first thing I would say is I blame the Taliban. They are the ones who are doing the killing. What I would say to Senators is, where you can help people who make our country safer, you should. All of us should try to find a way to get to yes at least sometimes if you can't do it all the time. I can tell the Members of this body that I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan 37 times--probably 20 times in Afghanistan. I spent close to 100 days on the ground in Afghanistan. I have seen in person what they do. They get outside the wire, make the mission possible, risk their lives, and Senator Shaheen has been able to navigate a very thorny issue and get a solution that is not 100 percent of what she wanted. She had to give up thousands of visas just to find a way to move forward. All I can say is that this really is a big deal. People's lives are at stake. This is not a hypothetical issue. All I can say is that I hope we can find it among ourselves to get to yes on this and what Senator Moran is trying to do. If we can't, we can't, but let me tell you this: Senator Lee objected to my Ex-Im Bank amendment in committee. He had every right to do so. It wasn't germane. It is very important to me. We are losing thousands of jobs. South Carolina is losing hundreds of jobs because the Bank shut down. I will still fight to get the Ex-Im Bank operating, but what I will not do to help the people of South Carolina is to put the lives of those in Afghanistan at risk. I don't think I am helping the people in South Carolina by making it harder for us to fight and win a war we can't afford to lose. I can't live with myself knowing what is coming their way. This is not a matter of ``what if'' to me. I have been there, I have seen it, and people are literally going to die. My amendment is important to me, and it is important to the economy of South Carolina and the Nation. I did not get my way, but I am not going to stand in the way of people being able to avoid being killed.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would be glad to.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, that is a great question. They are called night letters. Let me tell you how this works. I was in Kandahar with the rule of law field forces, and we were trying to build up the capacity of their judges in Kandahar. The judges were being killed in large measure, so it was pretty hard to find anybody who wanted to be a judge. We hardened the site, and we put some American troops, along with Afghan soldiers, to try to get a judiciary up and running in a really hot spot. We had a couple of police stations that were being overrun, and we tried to get people to go back to the police stations. The night letter was delivered to some of the leaders who were buying into what we were doing. I don't speak Pashto, but these night letters were from the Taliban saying: We are watching. The Americans will leave you. They will leave you, and we will remember you. I know what the night letter looks like because I saw one, but here is the difference--I never got one. Imagine what it would be like if you woke up tomorrow and the enemy of your country, which is trying to take your country down, is telling you and your family: We are watching you. We are coming after you. You are hiding behind the Great Satan, and the Great Satan will abandon you. I can tell you what it would do. It would make those letters real, and they will take this failure to help people who helped us and make it really hard in the future for us to defend our Nation. The night letters are going to increase. We had to sit down with these people and say: No, we are not going to abandon you. It is funny the Senator from New Hampshire mentioned that. I have a resolution that Senator Reed has agreed to which urges the President, if he chooses, to keep troops at 9,800 based on conditions. If he felt that was the right thing, we would all support him and let the next President find out if we need to go down in size. I am all for leaving. I just want to make sure the conditions are right to leave, and I don't think it is right to go from 9,800 to 5,500. All I can say to Senator Shaheen is that these night letters will be larger in number, and the people who get the letters are watching what we are doing.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, No. 1, I will object, and let me tell you why. The last time we had a hearing about the issue of whether or not an American citizen can be held as an enemy combatant if they collaborate with Al Qaeda was 2012. Since 2012, things have changed all for the worse. To my friend from Utah, your amendment should be in the Judiciary Committee. That is where primary jurisdiction exists. I am chairman of the Crime, Terrorism Subcommittee. I promise that we will have a hearing about your idea that never made it in the NDAA, and we will see what has changed from 2012 till now. I think that is much better than having a debate on the floor of the Senate about something this important that will last 30 minutes or an hour. I would argue to the American people that the rise of ISIL has changed the game. If you read their literature, they are talking about how it is easier to penetrate America than it is to get somebody to come here. When you listen to the FBI and Homeland Security director, their No. 1 fear is homegrown terrorism. Here is my view: We will debate the substance of this later. I think the best thing we can do is pass these two amendments. The Ex-Im Bank was brought up by Senator Schumer, and Senator Shelby objected. He has every right to do so. Senator Lee came on the floor and talked about what a bad idea the Bank is, and he has every right to do so. In order to allow these two people to go forward, the Senator has to get a vote on his amendment. That is what this is all about. I didn't get my amendment. I wish that we could have had a vote on the Ex-Im Bank reauthorization. It really does matter to me. I didn't get that.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you. I compliment Senator Shaheen and all those involved in trying to get to yes. The people who had concerns about your amendment, I understand their concerns. You are able to find a way to accommodate those concerns. This is sort of how the legislative process works. You get to yes when you can. But why this is important to America and particularly to me--Senator Sullivan served some time in Afghanistan as a marine working in the Embassy dealing with detainee operations. I did about 140 days on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, mostly in Afghanistan, as a Reservist. I did my Reserve duty, 1 week, 2 weeks at a time, with Task Force 435 that was in charge of detainee operations at Bagram prison. That unit's job was to advise the commanders about who to put in Bagram, what requirements there were to hold somebody in Bagram prison under U.S. custody, and also to build up the rule of law, where the rule-of-law field forces would go out to different parts of Afghanistan and work with the police and the judiciary to try to build capacity. During my experience in Afghanistan, I learned something that is, quite frankly, overwhelming to this day, how brave some people in Afghanistan are to change their country. There was one interpreter--and I am certainly not going to use his name--who was there the entire time I did my Reserve duty. I retired last year. This man was invaluable. It is not just interpreting the language and repeating what we said. It is the context that he made over time to make sure the coalition forces could accomplish their mission. Of all the people we owe a debt to as Americans, it is these interpreters and those who have assisted our forces. They have come out of the shadows. They have taken a skill set we did not have, which is local knowledge, and they have applied that skill set to helping our efforts to protect America but, equally important, to protect their homeland, Afghanistan. All the letters from those who were in command can say it better than I can. I had a small glimpse as a military lawyer over about a 5-year period coming in and coming out, and all I can tell you is what I saw was amazing, and it moved me beyond measure. I got to meet their family. The interpreters had families. I got to know them. They have children. They have wives. All the ones I know were male, but I know there were females who were helping too. I can tell you, if there is any way for this body to pass Senator Shaheen's amendment, you would be doing our country and those who helped us under the most dire situation a great service. As to how the body works, I wish I could get everything I wanted. I have not been able to do that in life or in the Senate. I wanted to have a vote on the Ex-Im Bank because the Ex-Im Bank is not operating because we don't have a quorum. I asked for an amendment on this bill to change that to get us back in the game in terms of the Ex-Im Bank because it shut down. It was objected to because it is not germane. I understand that. I am disappointed, but I am not going to stop the whole bill because I didn't get what I want. There are other people who are offering amendments that are very important to them. Ex-Im Bank is very important to people of South Carolina, but there is a process. The Ex-Im Bank is about jobs that are important to Americans. This is about lives. This is about the here and now. This is not about what might happen one day. Maybe if something happened, maybe we will do this or maybe we will do that. This is about people who have already stepped out. This is the here and now. There is nothing hypothetical about this debate. There are thousands of people in Afghanistan who have risked their lives to help us, and we are trying to get some of them out of Afghanistan to the safety of the United States, honoring their service to make sure other people in the future would also want to do the same. The one thing I tell my colleagues, the war is not over. Since 2012, 2011, the last time we had some of these debates, has it gotten better? The world is on fire right now. The threats to our country are at an alltime high, in my opinion. In 2012, ISIL didn't even exist. Today they are trying to penetrate the homeland. The Homeland Security Secretary said what keeps him up at night is homegrown terrorism. The enemy is actively involved in trying to get people on their side who live among us. All I can say is, the things that have changed over the last few years are all for the worse, not the better, and this amendment is literally life and death. I honest to God beg and plead with the Members of this body, if you can't get everything you want, please don't stop this. I did not get everything I want. This really matters.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator. Here is the issue: To those who are a slave to these sequestration caps, to those who believe sequestration and this budget practice we are involved with is going to save the country, boy, I couldn't disagree with you more. We haven't moved the debt needle at all. Discretionary spending is not the reason we are in debt. We are spending at a 2008 level. So these blind, across-the-board cuts limited to discretionary spending and a lot of programs that are not even subject to sequestration are not moving the debt needle; they are destroying the ability to defend this country. The theory we are advocating here today is that there is an emergency in the U.S. military that needs to be addressed and we should be able to add money to the U.S. military, the Department of Defense, based on an emergency that is real and not be limited by caps that are insane. Here is the issue: Is there an emergency in terms of readiness? Is there an emergency in terms of operations and maintenance? Are we putting the ability to modernize our force at risk in an emergency situation because we don't have enough money to fight the wars we are in and modernize the force for the wars to come? If you don't believe us, here is what the Commandant of the Marine Corps said about the current state of readiness: ``Our aviation units are currently unable to meet our training and mission requirements, primarily due to Ready Basic Aircraft shortfalls.'' I can tell you that in the Marine Corps today, 70 percent of the F- 18s have a problem meeting combat status. I can tell you today that the Army is stretched unlike any time I have ever seen. I can tell you today that the Navy is robbing Peter to pay Paul to keep the ships on the ocean, and with the numbers we have in terms of defense spending, they are having to forgo modernization to deal with readiness, to deal with the ability to fight the war. I can tell you that the Commandant of the Marine Corps is going to take six B-22s out of Spain that are used to rescue consulates and embassies that come under attack in Africa because we need those planes to train pilots, and if we don't bring back those planes, we are not going to have an airworthy B-22 force at a time when we need it. We are creating a hole and a vacuum in our ability to protect our diplomats and U.S. citizens.

Mr. GRAHAM. I will add that anybody who doesn't believe there is an emergency in the U.S. military is not listening to the U.S. military and has not been following the consequences of what we have done over the last 5 or 6 years in terms of cuts to the military. Over the last 7 or 8 years, we cut $1 trillion out of the U.S. military. We are on track now to have the smallest Army since 1940, the smallest Navy since 1915, and the smallest Air Force in modern times. We are on track to spend half of what we normally spend in time of war. Normally we spend about 4.5 percent of GDP to defend this Nation; we are on track by 2021 to spend 2.3 percent of GDP. I want to say this: In my view, this is an emergency. I want you to go back home and explain to those who are busting their ass to fight this war, who can't fly equipment because it is too dangerous, who are having to cannibalize planes to keep some planes in the air, who are stretched so thin that it is creating high risk. Here is what the Chief of Staff of the Army said: ``I characterize us at this current state at high military risk.'' This is the Chief of Staff of the Army telling all of us that the Army is in a high state of risk because of budget cuts. This $18 billion will restore money that has been taken out. That will have a beneficial effect now and is absolutely essential. It will give us 15,000 more people in the Army. And if you are in the Army, you would like to have some more colleagues because you have been going back and forth, back and forth. So we need more people in the Army, not less. We need 3,000 more marines. If anybody has borne the burden of this war, it is the U.S. Marine Corps. Here is what I say: Let's hire more marines. Let's start listening to what is going on in the military. The whole theory of this amendment is that we have let this deteriorate to the point that we have an emergency situation where we are putting our men and women's lives at risk because they don't have the equipment they need and the training opportunities they deserve to fight the war that we can't afford to lose, and you are going to vote no because you are worried about budget caps. Oh, we love the military. Everybody loves the military. Well, your love doesn't help them. Your love doesn't buy a damn thing. If you love these men and women, you will adequately fund their needs. If you care about them and their families, you will adjust the budget so they can fight a war on our behalf. We are up here arguing about everything. The state of politics in America makes me sick. This looks like one thing we can agree on-- Libertarians, vegetarians, Republicans, and Democrats--that those who are fighting this war deserve better than we are giving them. So I want to tell you, when you come and vote against this amendment because you are worried about the budget caps, well, the Budget Committee is not going to fight this war. To my friends at Heritage Action, I agree with you a lot. You are saying this is a bad vote. Nobody at Heritage Action is going to go over to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, or Libya to protect this country. You talk about a head-in-the-sand Congress. You talk about people who are not listening, who are so worried about special interest groups and concepts that have absolutely no basis in reality. If you fully implement sequestration, all you will do is gut the military and some nondefense programs that really matter to us. You won't change the debt at all. So don't go around telling people you are getting us to a balanced budget. You are not. The money is in entitlements, and we are not doing a damn thing about it. Ryan-Murray added some money, and I want to thank him, but it wasn't enough. I want to thank the appropriators for adding $7 billion, but it is not nearly enough. The $18 billion that is in this amendment goes to buy airplanes--14 F-18s, 5 F-35s, 2 F-35Bs. There is $200 million to help the Israelis with their missile defense program. What this buys is more people, more equipment, more training opportunities at a time when we need all of the above. It breaks the cap because we are in an emergency situation. These caps are straining our ability to defend this Nation. I hate what we have done to the military. This is a small step forward. This is not nearly what we need, but this $18 billion will provide some needed relief to the people who have been fighting this war for 15 years. I hope and pray that you will start listening to those we put in charge of our military and respond to their needs, and this is a small step in the right direction. If we say no to this amendment, God help us all. And you own it. You own the state of high risk. If you vote no, then as far as I am concerned, you better never say ``I love the military'' anymore because if you really loved them, you would do something about it.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to be recognized to speak in support of the McCain amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to Members of the body on both sides of the aisle, I appreciate the effort to produce a bipartisan national defense authorization bill. I think our committee did a good job in coming up with a bipartisan bill, but as a body and as a country we haven't done enough and this is a chance to rectify what I think is an incredibly big problem. We are at war--at least I think we are. We have been at war for the last 15 years. I cannot tell you how hard it has been on the all- voluntary force. I was in the Air Force for 33 years. I retired last year. I had the pleasure of meeting a lot of men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan 37 times in the last decade. I have seen incredible sacrifice by those who serve our Nation to defend us against another 9/11 and what their families have gone through. As a nation and a Congress, what have we done to those who have been fighting this war? We are on track to have the smallest Army since 1940. Sequestration--across-the-board budget cuts that have taken almost $1 trillion out of the defense budget--is insanity and nobody seems to give a damn about fixing it. None of us have to go and fly in planes that are about to fall out of the sky. None of us are commanders of troops and having to use duct tape to get through the day. None of us have to worry about going over and over and over to the war zone because the war is getting worse, not better. It looks like all of us should listen to our commanders who have said with one voice that the readiness of the U.S. military is in an emergency situation. The ability to give the flying hours our pilots need can't be done because of budget constraints. It looks like we would want to listen to the Chief of Staff of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps who are telling us that sequestration has taken a toll on the ability to defend this Nation. We have had some patchwork solutions. We put some money back, but we are due to go back into sequestration next year. The amount of money we put back in the Ryan-Murray compromise was much appreciated, and Senator McCain is trying to put an $18 billion infusion into the military to meet their unfunded needs that would plus-up the Army by 15,000 and would plus-up the Marine Corps and the National Guard and would give more money for operation and maintenance. The problem that seems lost on this Congress is that training hours have to give way to operational needs in theater. Let me give one small example. There is a Marine Corps readiness rapid response force in Spain that is stationed in Spain to deal with Benghazi-type events throughout Africa. They have to fly--in case something went bad-- thousands of miles. They have 12 aircraft, B-22s, and 2 teams. The Commandant of the Marine Corps is having to take six of these aircraft away from Spain to bring them back to the United States because we don't have enough airplanes to train the B-22 pilots. That means there is a hole in our ability to protect our citizens and diplomats in Africa. I cannot tell you the damage that sequestration has done to our military, and we seem unmoved by all of this. I cannot believe that the body is not responding more aggressively to the needs of our military, given the threats we are facing. How much more information do we need from our commanders to believe this is an emergency? I say to my Democratic colleagues, I know sequestration is hurting on the nondefense side, but all spending is not equal. I stand ready with you to find a way to buy back sequestration and pay for it by having some revenue come from closing loopholes and deductions like the supercommittee envisioned by using some revenue and some entitlement reform to buy back what is left on sequestration. I am not asking that you just spend money on defense and ignore the rest of the problems associated with sequestration. I have sat done on two separate occasions with Members on the other side to try to find ways to buy back sequestration so we could actually achieve the savings, and we have been able to not do a whole lot. Ryan and Murray came up with a fix that provided some relief that expires at the end of the year. The bottom line is this. The McCain amendment is making the argument that the $18 billion in this amendment has to be spent based on an emergency. Here is the question: Is there an emergency when it comes to the operational needs of this country on the defense side? Have we put our troops in a spot where we are risking their lives and their ability to prosecute the war because we have gone too far with defense cuts? I think we have, but if you don't believe me, you should listen to our commanders and hopefully I can read some of their quotes. With this $18 billion infusion, we are able to increase the size of the Army, and if you are in the Army, you could use a little help right about now. You have been busting your ass for the last 15 years, going back and forth, back and forth, and the way we reward your service is to decrease the size of the Army. I just got back from Asia, and everybody in Asia is wondering: What the heck is America doing? We are going to have the smallest Navy since 1915. We are going to pivot to Asia with what? Under sequestration our ability to modernize the Navy has been lost. They don't have the money to build the new ships that we need to fight the wars of the future and contain a threatening China because they are in a war now. They are robbing Peter to pay Paul. It looks like we would want to help the Marines. If you are a marine, boy, have you been on the tip of the spear. This amendment would allow us to have 3,000 more marines. What does that mean? It means we will have 3,000 more people to help prosecute the war and take a little burden off the Marine Corps, which has been absolutely worn out. Seventy percent of the F-18s in the Marine Corps have problems flying. We are cannibalizing planes to keep other planes in the air. To those who say we need to reform the Pentagon, you are right. Not only do we need to, we have. Fifty percent of the Department of Defense budget is personnel costs. Last year we reformed retirement. At 20 years, you are not going to get half of your base pay. You will get 40 percent in the future. That will save money. We are going to allow a Thrift Savings Plan for those who want to contribute 5 percent of their pay and we will match 5 percent, but they can't get the money until they are 59 or 60. That will be money for the servicemembers, but it comes later. We are going to ask our retirees to pay a little bit more for the military health care system because we haven't had a premium adjustment of any consequence since 1995. We are going to go to fixed-price contracts to deal with the abuse of cost-plus contracts to save money. We are trying to reduce the number of general officers because they have exploded. We are doing a lot of things to make the Pentagon operate better, but at the end of the day, you need people to defend this country. When sequestration kicks back in, we are going to go from 475,000 to 420,000. What I am asking for is a bipartisan effort to stop the bleeding, to take the request for the military that is unfunded and desperately needed and give them a little bit of hope. We need to let them know Congress is listening to their problem because we are not. We are ignoring the problems of our military because if we were really serious about helping them, we would pass this by a voice vote, but, no, we can't increase defense spending by $18 billion to increase the size of the Army, Marine Corps, and the National Guard, to give more flight time to our pilots, more money to maintain the equipment and increase the size of the National Guard, which has really suffered during the last 15 years, and to buy more airplanes. The bottom line is, we can't do all of that because we have to increase nondefense spending. To my Democratic colleagues, if you don't think there is an emergency in the military, then you haven't been listening. To those Republicans who believe the appropriations bill has adequately funded the needs of the military, you haven't been listening. Well, I have been listening. Washington is broken in many ways. I enjoy being a Member of the Senate, and I respect my colleagues, even though we disagree, but this one I can't understand. I can't understand this. I can understand ideology, I can understand the differences between pro-life, pro- choice, guns, revenue, and taxes. I can understand conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism. I can understand that in a great country we have differences, but this I can't understand. I can't understand why any of us would let this happen to our military. Whether you are a Libertarian, vegetarian, Republican, or Democrat, you need these men and women defending you so you can argue among yourselves. We can argue until the cows come home about how America should be, and it is a privilege to have this debate. While we are arguing among ourselves about how to make America great again or to become one, stronger together, or whatever damn phrase is out there, the people who are giving us the privilege to argue are being worn out and underfunded. Let me tell you the consequence of this. At a time the enemy is growing in capability to attack this country, we are gutting our ability to defend this country. A perfect storm is brewing. We have an America in retreat and in decline all over the world. We have a Presidential contest that is absolutely crazy. The Republican nominee, when he talks about foreign policy, it is complete gibberish. The Democratic nominee seems to be afraid to articulate how to change things. What is she going to do differently? Where is she on sequestration? Secretary Clinton, do you think now is the time to spend more on our military because we are in an emergency situation? Tell me why I am wrong. Tell me why you don't believe all of the things said by those in leadership. I am dumbfounded that this is hard given the state of readiness of our military. I am dumbfounded that we can't improve military readiness without increasing spending for food safety modernization. I am sure there is probably something legitimate there, but the Food Safety Modernization Act is not going to stop ISIL from coming here. There is $1.9 billion for water infrastructure. I am sure it is legitimate, but all I can say is that whatever problems we have with water, they pale in comparison to the problems we have with terrorism. Who are we as a body, who are we as a people if we can't see this being an emergency? If you are not listening and you have shut your mind and eyes to what is going on, then shame on you. This is the low point to me; that we cannot as a body agree that our men and women in the military are in a bad spot and they need our help yesterday. So vote the way you are going to vote, but don't tell me that the Appropriations Committee, of which I am a member, has fixed the problem because we haven't. We did appropriate more money, and I appreciate it, but the $18 billion on this list is not addressed by the Appropriations Committee's effort to do more, and don't tell me this is not an emergency because I don't believe it. Don't hold the men and women hostage from getting the money they desperately need to defend us all because you want more money somewhere else. Whatever differences we have, whatever hopes and dreams we have as individuals or collectively as Americans are at risk because the people we are fighting would kill every one of us if they could. They could care less if you are a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. They want to hurt us, and they want to hurt us badly, and the only way to keep them from hurting us is for some of us to go over there in partnership with others over there to keep the fight from coming back over here. It looks like all of us can agree on giving the people going over there the best chance they can to survive the fight, come back home and protect us all, but apparently we can't get there. Shame on us. Shame on us all. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I want to take a few minutes and recognize an outstanding achievement by one of my constituents, Mr. Bob Burg. His story offers us a good lesson about perseverance and the importance of lifelong learning. His story should inspire others. After dropping out of school in the 11th grade, Mr. Burg went on to serve in the Air Force for 4 years. Following his service in the Air Force, he worked for 35 years in his family business. Eventually, Mr. Burg retired from that position saying, ``I had nothing to do. I have plenty of hobbies, but you can only fill up your life so much with hobbies.'' Instead, he felt that retirement left a void in his life, so Mr. Burg decided to fill the void by enrolling at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. Mr. Burg, then age 74, said he wasn't the best student in high school many years ago. In fact, he admitted his academic shortcomings in his younger days. Mr. Burg also shared some humorous observations about what it was like to go back to college and be surrounded by fellow students several decades younger: ``I walked into school and one of the young girls said, `Mr. Burg, are you over 60?' I laughed and said `honey, you were in diapers when I turned 60.' '' Well, I am proud to report that Mr. Burg, now age 78, just graduated from the University of South Carolina with a degree in history. His story serves as an example to us all that education, whether in life or the classroom, can be a lifelong endeavor. In his nearly eight decades of life he has earned many titles-- veteran who served his Nation, valued employee in the family business, retiree, and now his newest title--college graduate. Job well done, Mr. Burg.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time is remaining for our side?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as to the Durbin amendment, I want people to understand what we are trying to do. There is $900 million spent on medical research in the Department of Defense. All we are asking is that the money being spent be related to the defense needs of this country. Of that $900 million, probably two thirds of the research money will not pass the test of being related to the Defense Department. If you care about the men and women in uniform--which we all do--that is probably $600 million or $700 million to help a military that is in decline. In terms of research dollars, I have worked with Senators Durbin, Alexander, and Blunt to increase NIH funding. This idea of taking money out of the Defense Department's budget to do medical research unrelated to the defense needs of this country needs to stop because the military is under siege. We have the smallest Navy since 1915 and the smallest Army since 1940. If we really want to reform the way things are done up here, this is a good start. To those programs that don't make the cut in DOD, we will have to find another place. If they make sense, I will help you find another place. To those medical research items that survive the cut, they are going to have to go through the normal contracting procedure to make sure we are doing it competitively. I don't think that is too much to ask. If you want things to change in Washington, somebody has to start the process of change. It is long overdue to stop spending money in the Department of Defense's budget for things unrelated to the Department of Defense, even though many of them are worthy. The point we are trying to make is that our military needs every dollar it can get, and we need to look at the way we are doing business anew. That is exactly what this bill does, and Senator Durbin takes us back to the old way of doing it. Finally, the whole idea of medical research in the Department of Defense budget started with a $20 million earmark for breast cancer that is now $900 million. Why? Because if you can make it into DOD's bill, you are going to get your program funded. It is not about medical research. It is about the power of somebody to get the medical research program in the budget of the Department of Defense. It is not a merit- based process. It needs to be. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. If it is OK with the Senator, I will make a few comments.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. GRAHAM. I will just take a couple of minutes to keep everybody awake. The history of this program is pretty interesting. In 1992, by mandate, the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program began within the Department of Defense with an earmark of $20 million for breast cancer. So, back in 1992, somebody came up with the idea that we should put some money regarding breast cancer research into the Department of Defense bill. Everybody I know of wants to defeat breast cancer and fund research at an appropriate level. Why did they do it in the Defense bill? Because the Defense bill was going to pass. It is the one thing around here that we all eventually get done because we have to defend the Nation. So that idea of a $20 million earmark for breast cancer--fast forward from 1992 to now--is $900-something million of research at the Department of Defense. It went from $20 million to $900 million. It has been about $1 billion a year for a very long time. The reason these programs are put in the Department of Defense--some of them are related to the Department of Defense and veterans; many of them are not, and the ones that can make it in this bill are going to get their funding apart from their traditional research funding--is that the Department of Defense will get funded. All we are saying is that, given the budget problems we have as a nation and the constraints on our military due to defense cuts and shrinking budgets, now is the time to reevaluate the way we do business. It is not that we are against medical research in the Defense Department's budget; we just want it to be related to defense. I know that is a novel idea, but it makes sense to me. All the things that Senator Durbin identified as being done in the Department of Defense--I am sure most of them are very worthy. Let's just make sure they are funded outside of the Department of Defense because the money is being taken away from defending the Nation. Taking money out of the Defense Department to do research is probably not a smart thing to do now if it is not related to defending the Nation, given the state of the world and the state of the military. So this is business as usual, even if it is just $900 million, which is still a lot of money. I think it is time to relook at the way we fund the Defense Department and how it runs and try to get it in a spot that is more sustainable. So what have we done? We have said: You can still do research at the Department of Defense, but the Secretary of Defense has to certify it is related to our defense needs--and a pretty liberal interpretation of that. If you are going to do research, you have to go through the normal contracting procedures that everybody else has to go through. Those two changes really make sense to me. Here is the point: If you apply the test that it has got to be related to defending the Nation in a fairly liberal interpretation, probably two-thirds or three-fourths of this account would not pass that test. So that means there is going to be $600 million or $700 million--maybe more--that will go to defense needs, not research needs. That doesn't mean that we don't need to spend the money on research. Most of it we probably do. The person delivering this speech is also the cochairman of the NIH, which is the part of the government that does medical research. I want to increase that budget tremendously because the dividends to the taxpayers and to our overall health are real. I just don't want to continue to use the Defense Department as a way to do research unrelated to the defense needs of this country because I don't think that is the right way to do it. When you are this far in debt and the military is under this much pressure, it is time for change. That is all this is--making a commonsense change to a practice that started at $20 million and is now almost $1 billion.

Mr. GRAHAM. No. 1, when it comes to Senator Durbin, there is no stronger voice for medical research in the Senate and he should be proud of that. Senator Durbin and I are cochairing the NIH caucus, the National Institutes of Health, to make sure we take the crown jewel of our research at the Federal level and adequately fund it, to try to make it more robust, and in times of budget cuts, sequestration across the board, I want to compliment Senator Blunt and Senator Durbin and others for trying to find a way to increase NIH funding. I think we will be successful, and a lot of credit will go to Senator Durbin. As to the military budget, we are on course to have the smallest Army since 1940. We are on course to have the smallest Navy since 1915 and the smallest Air Force in modern times. Modernization programs are very much stuck in neutral. The wars continue, and they are expanding. By 2021, if we go back into a sequestration mode, we will be spending half of normally what we spend on defense in terms of GDP. So to those who want to reform the military, count me in. This will be one of the most reform-minded packages in the history of the Department of Defense. We are trying to address the top-heavy nature of the military, where general officer billets have exploded, and make sure we have a leaner military at the top and put our emphasis on those out in the field fighting the war. We are dealing with the explosion of contractors. We are looking at our medical delivery systems anew. It has all been bipartisan. Senator Reed deserves a lot of credit with his Democratic colleagues to find ways to reform the military, not only to save money but to improve the quality of life of those in the military. There is an obligation on all of us who are considered defense hawks to make sure the military works more efficiently. This bill drives contracting away from cost-plus to fixed price. We see a lot of overruns in terms of big-ticket items--billions of dollars over what was projected in terms of costs of the F-35 and aircraft carriers. One of the ways to change that problem is to have the contractor have skin in the game by having a fixed price rather than cost-plus contracting. I want to compliment Senators McCain and Reed for looking at the way the military is being run and trying to make it more efficient, understanding that reform is necessary. Having said that, 50 percent of the military's budget, for the most part, goes into personnel, and I believe we need more people in the Army, not less. So we can reform the military to save money, and we should. We can bring better business practices to the table, and we should. We can modernize the way we deliver health care to get outcomes rather than just spending money, and we should. We can look at every part of the military and put it under a microscope and make it more efficient and make sure it is serving the defense needs of the country. Having said that, given the number of ships we are headed toward, 278--420,000 people in the Army--we need more people to defend this Nation, and we have an obligation to the people defending the Nation to give them the best equipment and take care of their families. I am not looking for a fair fight. I want to rebuild the military and make sure our military has the weapons systems that would deter war, and if you had to go to war, to win it as quickly as possible. That gets us to medical research. There is about $1 billion spent on medical research within the Department of Defense. What we are suggesting is that we look at this account anew. What the committee has decided to do--Senator McCain--is to say the Secretary of Defense has to certify that the money in the medical research budget in the Department of Defense is actually related to the defense world. There are a lot of good things being done in the Department of Defense in terms of medical research, but the question for us is, in that $1 billion, how much of it actually applies to the military itself because every dollar we spend out of DOD's budget for things not related to defense hurts our ability to defend the Nation. It is not a slam on the things they are doing. I am sure they are all worthwhile. The question is, Should that be done somewhere else and should it come out of a different pot of money? So the two measures we are proposing--to continue medical research in the future, the Secretary of Defense would have to certify that the medical research program in question is related to the Department of Defense's needs, and there is a pretty broad application of what ``need'' is--traumatic brain injury and all kinds of issues related to veterans. Of the $1 billion, using the criteria I have just suggested where there is a certification, some of the money will stay in the Department of Defense, but some of it will not because if we look at that $1 billion, a lot of it is not connected to what we do to defend the Nation. The second requirement is that if they are going to get research dollars, they have to go through the same process as any other contractor to get money from the Department of Defense. That means they are in the same boat as anybody else who deals with the Department of Defense. If that is a redtape burden, then everybody who deals with the Department of Defense will share that burden. So rather than just writing a check to somebody, there is a process to apply for the money and the contracting rules will apply. These are the two changes--a certification that the money being spent on medical research benefits the military, the Department of Defense, and in order to get that money one has to go through the normal contracting procedures to make sure there is competition and all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. I think that makes sense. I think some of the money we are spending under the guise of military Department of Defense research has nothing to do with the Department of Defense, and we need every dollar we can find to defend the Nation. Many of these programs are very worthwhile, I am sure, and I would be willing to continue them somewhere else. I am supporting a dramatic increase in NIH funding. I am very much for research, but if we are going to bring about change in Washington, and if people like me who want a stronger military are going to advocate for a bigger military, I think we have an obligation to have a smarter, more reformed system. I am not trying to have it both ways. I am looking at how the Pentagon works at every level, along with Senator McCain, and we are bringing structural changes that are long overdue. I want to compliment Senator Reed, who has been a great partner to Senator McCain. We don't always agree, but I think Senator Reed has bought into the idea that the Pentagon is not immune from being reformed and the status quo has to change. So with all due respect to Senator Durbin, I think the provisions Senator McCain has crafted make sense to me. To get research dollars in the future, the Secretary of Defense has to certify that the money in question helps the Department of Defense, and if one is going to bid for the business, they must go through the normal contracting process to make sure it is done right. Those are the only two changes. Those programs that will be knocked out of the Department of Defense, I am certainly willing to keep them funded somewhere else. I think that is a long-overdue reform. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. To build on this, several years ago Russia took by force Crimea. This was not a fair election. It is pretty hard to have a fair election when there is a Russian tank parked in front of your yard. Good luck saying you don't want to go to Russia. We have done nothing other than sanction Russia. Russia is still engaged in provocative behavior. We told him not to go into Crimea. We told him not to dismember Ukraine. He did. He is stronger, not weaker. We told him not to use military force to help Assad, who is the Butcher of Damascus. He did. We pleaded with him not to attack non-ISIL targets. He did. He destroyed the opposition to Assad. Russia is in league with Iran. So the biggest winner of Russia's involvement on the ground in Syria has been the Iranians, which is the most destabilizing group of people in the entire Mideast. The biggest loser has been the free Syrian opposition, the Syrian people themselves, and close behind is the American reputation in the region. I want the administration to know that your handling of Syria has been a disaster on multiple levels. It has emboldened Iran. It has made Russia stronger. We are losing credibility in the region at a time when the region needs leadership. If you go to Geneva and you close out a peace deal that is a joke that allows Assad or somebody--Bob Assad, not Bashar Assad--to stay in power, if you allow a peace agreement where the Iranians control Damascus and Russia has a naval and air force base and more influence than we do, what have you accomplished? I hope and pray the administration will stop this insane desire to bring Syria to a conclusion where the conclusion is going to make the whole region subject to blowing up. A successful conclusion is not having Iran being the dominant force inside of Syria, Russia having more influence, an air base and a naval base, and the Syrian people losing the ability to replace their tormenter, and ISIL having a magnet for future recruitment, which is an Iranian-backed Assad. That is not a successful outcome. What do you think, I ask Senator McCain?

Mr. GRAHAM. I think it sends a signal that you can't rely upon us. You have two training programs--one by the CIA and one by the Department of Defense. The people trained outside the Department of Defense have been wholesale slaughtered by the Russian air attacks, and we have done nothing about it. What does the region say? We have two enemies--Assad and ISIL. Our unwillingness to confront Assad has created a sense of abandonment in the entire region. Assad is a puppet of Iran. Iran is the mortal enemy of the Sunni Arab states. So what has the President accomplished here? He said Assad must go. He trained people to help take him down. Russia came in and said Assad will not go. They have attacked the people we have trained, and we basically have abandoned the free Syrian opposition. Now we are in Geneva talking about a peace agreement where the whole balance now is in Assad's favor. Does anybody really believe there is military jeopardy for Assad? And without his being in jeopardy, how do you get an agreement the Syrian people can live with? If Assad or his henchmen stay in power, how do you ever end the war in Syria? So what we have accomplished is that we have given the Russians more influence in the Mideast than at any time since 1973. We have allowed Iran basically to dictate the terms in Damascus. We have jeopardized our relationship with our Arab partners. We have put in question Americans' reliability in terms of the people inside of Syria. The Syrian policy of Barack Obama has done enormous damage. Without Russia being involved, none of this would have happened.

Mr. GRAHAM. I think you are right, I say to Senator McCain. Let's look at what our military leaders say rather than just look at what political people think. General Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a hearing you chaired today was asked: What is Putin up to? What do you think he is trying to do here? He said: Well, all I can tell you is the reason he came into Syria was to destroy ISIL and help fight ISIL. He has proven that he did not do that. He didn't try to do that. So what General Dunford said was that basically Putin lied about why he came to Syria. If he is leaving Syria, the job against ISIL is far from done. But I think you nailed it, I say to Senator McCain. The job of propping up Assad has been accomplished. So what General Dunford said is that the reason that Putin came into Syria was not to destroy ISIL but to help his stooge, his puppet Assad. He believes he achieved such military superiority on behalf of Assad by bombing the people we trained that he can now leave. So at the end of the day, he is not leaving. A naval base and an air force base will be in Syria. He said: We are withdrawing our forces, but, of course, we will have a naval presence and an air base. Here is what I would say. If he needs to help Assad in the future, he will. Geneva has become a joke. There is no way you are going to negotiate a successful agreement when Assad is backed by Russia and Iran. The opposition has been abandoned by the United States and the free world. The Russian President has bombed the people the American President trained to take Assad out.