Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. The Presiding Officer is from Virginia, and I know he understands military men and women very well. It is a very patriotic State when it comes to their military footprint. I am confident that he and I--and others--will be able to fix the problem that occurred in the budget agreement. Let me say about the agreement itself that I do appreciate the fact that we were able to find a bipartisan way forward to relieve sequestration from the military and nonmilitary for a couple of years. That is just a drop in the bucket as far as what we have to do to repair the military. GDP spending on the military is moving toward an alltime low over a 10-year period with sequestration. The historical average has been well over 4 percent, and we are going to hit below 3 percent if we continue sequestration. That is an issue for another day. The budget agreement called for relieving sequestration in the pay- fors. Quite frankly, they were not big. They did not change the course of the country. They are not what the Senator from Virginia and I hoped for. We would have liked to have done entitlement reform. I would like to do Tax Code simplification. I am willing to eliminate deductions in the Tax Code and take some of the money to pay down the debt, even though some folks on my side say we have to put it all in tax reductions. And I think the Senator from Virginia would be willing to engage in commonsense entitlement reform to keep us from becoming Greece. This was the best deal we could get. It didn't do the big deal, but it did provide some budget relief for a 2-year period, and it was about $60-something billion; I can't remember the number. The bottom line is that one of the ways you paid for relieving pressure on the defense budget and nondefense spending was there was a provision that will affect military retirees, which nobody will own, that got into the budget agreement. I am on the Budget Committee. I was not consulted about the agreement; I read about it in the paper. There is a fine line between having a bunch of people involved who kind of keep things from never developing to produce a product and having a handful of people doing something in a small room, not vetted. So the bottom line is that $6.3 billion of the pay-fors came from adjusting military retirement cost-of-living allowances for those who have served our military for 20 years and are therefore eligible for retirement. What they did was they took the COLA and reduced it by 1 percent for every military retiree until they reach the age of 62. The President, to his credit, has called for an adjusting CPI, the way COLAs are calculated, for everybody--for civilians, military, Social Security--to make it more consistent with sustainable inflationary increases. This didn't adjust the COLA, it left the formula as it is; it just reduced the military retiree's COLA by 1 percent until the military retiree reaches age 62, and that is the only group in the country that had that happen. So $6.3 billion is taken away from men and women who have served for 20 years, and no one else had the pleasure of that experience. Civilian employees, new hires, had to contribute additional funds to the Federal retirement system to help pay for the deal, but it only affected new retirees; the people who are in the system were grandfathered. The only group that Congress found fit to single out for the retroactive application was the retiree community. All I can say is that military pay--retirement, pension pay, health care benefits are going to be subject to being reviewed and they will be subject to reform, because a larger portion of our budget in DOD is personnel costs. The Congress, in its wisdom, set up a commission to look at this issue. They are supposed to report back in 2014--now maybe it is as late as 2015--about how to reform military pay and benefits as part of an overall restructuring of the Pentagon. One thing Congress put into the commission's charter was that they had to grandfather people who are currently in the system. In the budget agreement we singled out military retirees for a 1-percent reduction of their COLA and nobody was grandfathered--$6.3 billion coming out of the pockets of those who have served. For an E-7 who is going to retire at 40 and has his or her COLA reduced to age 62, it is between $71,984 or $80,000, depending on who you talk to, in loss and benefits. And the E-7 receives in retirement pay after 20 years of faithful service about $25,000 a year--not exactly becoming independently wealthy. We have one of the leading voices on this issue, Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire, who took up this challenge and came up with some solutions early on and has been a great voice about how unfair this is. So I will yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. GRAHAM. This applies to disabled retirees as well, right?

Mr. GRAHAM. Senator Ayotte mentioned this Washington Post editorial. The Washington Post is, in my view, a very good newspaper. I like the editorial board. They have been right on Syria and a lot of other issues. Sometimes we disagree, that is for sure. But this one editorial has gotten my attention to the point that I have to respond and, quite frankly, ask my friends at the Washington Post to reevaluate their position and think a little bit about what they are saying in their editorial when it comes to military retirees.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent to be able to engage the Senator from New Hampshire in a colloquy for about 20 minutes. I would appreciate it if the Presiding Officer would let us know when the 20 minutes has expired. I would like to discuss the military retiree position and the budget with Senator Ayotte when she gets here.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I think what the Senator has just described--the litany of chaos and mayhem spread by the Iranian regime that he knows probably better than anyone because he spent so much time there--it is Hezbollah but also Hamas. They are all in. The people who create the biggest upheaval for Israel are all in for their buddy Assad, the butcher of Damascus. Without Iran's support, one of the most evil people on the planet would not have a chance. Doesn't the Senator believe we are in a proxy war between us and the Iranians in Syria? That if we don't--and our actions towards whether we are going to use force or we are not going to use force, with Assad winning--that our policies toward Syria are affecting the regime's belief about what we may do about their nuclear program? One thing that might reset our resolve as a nation is for the Congress to impose additional sanctions so the Ayatollahs will not be confused about our lack of will in Syria when it comes to their nuclear program. The bottom line is, after our debacle in Syria, doesn't the Senator think we have a problem with the Iranian regime of taking us seriously? The international community is now breaking the sanctions. If new sanctions were imposed in a bipartisan way, that is the best way to reset the debate.

Mr. GRAHAM. I think the whole Middle East is going in the wrong direction at warp speed. Congress has some obligation to speak up, to do something about it, and to try to help the administration when we can. No. 1, a new round of sanctions, if we could muster bipartisan support, would send a great message to the Iranians: We don't see you the same as we do Syria. There was a lot of confusion and differences in the body about what to do in Syria. The Senator has been right for 3 years on this whole topic, but we are where we are. So a new round of sanctions, bipartisanly passed, would tell the Iranians that the American Congress and people look at them differently than the problem in Syria. It would also be a statement in the international community: We are resolved to get this program dismantled by using sanctions. We are not backing off, so stop this breakout. Finally to our friends, to the Israelis, to the Sunni Arab States, wouldn't it be welcome news to be tougher on Iran and to have the Congress reinforce the message to the Iranians that we are going to keep in place sanctions until they dismantle their program? Wouldn't that be some welcome news in a region that is absolutely desperate for some good news from America?

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, the Senator is right. This interim agreement has not been implemented yet. They have 6 months to reach a final agreement but also an additional 6 months beyond that--a year, basically--to drag out these negotiations. The Senator asked the ultimate question. Does the Senator not believe sanctions are the only reason the Iranians are at the table? I compliment the administration for putting together an international regime to take the sanctions that Congress has passed--over their objections, I might add--to really inflict pain on the Iranian regime-- unfortunately, the people too. But that is the only reason they are at the table. But here is the analysis, as I understand it. People in the administration believe there is a moderate element and a hard-line element. Iran is telling the United States and the P5+1: If you threaten us with any more sanctions, we will walk away. We are not going to negotiate with a gun to our heads. Now, these are the people who have been using a lot of guns and have put a lot of guns to people's heads and actually pulled the trigger, killed hundreds of soldiers in Iraq, and have created chaos and mayhem in Syria. They are one of the biggest supporters of state terrorism. But that is an odd thing for them to say, when I believe the only reason they are at the table to begin with is because of sanctions. So my belief is that new sanctions tied to the end game--and this is what we have been working on in a bipartisan fashion. It is not just keeping the sanctions alive for the next year; it is tying their relief to an outcome that we all want. I want a peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear program. If they want a peaceful nuclear power program, they can have it; just control the fuel cycle. That has been my position. If they want an enrichment capability that has to be monitored by the U.N. and it is robust and the only reason they will not break out to get a nuclear weapon is because of U.N. inspectors, that is North Korea. The movie the Senator talked about is the movie called North Korea, where you would impose sanctions, you would relieve them, you would give them money, you would give them food, you would reinstate sanctions, and you would have U.N. inspectors to control the progress. The program was never dismantled. Don't repeat the mistakes in Iran that were repeated in North Korea. Dismantle this program before it is too late. To the administration, we are trying to help, not hurt. I do not believe there is a moderate element when it comes to the Iranian nuclear power program. I think that is a facade. The new President is a charming fellow on television, but he was a nuclear negotiator in 2004 and 2005 for the Iranian regime and openly bragged about how much advancement they made during his time negotiating toward an enrichment program that could produce a bomb. So this idea that there are hard-liners and moderates when it comes to the Iranian nuclear program is a miscalculation. So we are working on bipartisan sanctions, to continue them, and they can only be relieved when we dismantle the enrichment program, when we dismantle the plutonium reactor, the heavy water reactor that has nothing to do with producing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and remove the stockpile as the U.N. has recommended. The U.N. resolutions are in force today, are on the books today. This agreement is to the left of the U.N. So the reason we are pushing sanctions in a bipartisan fashion is we want to avoid a conflict. The Iranian nuclear program has to be stopped one way or the other--through diplomacy and sanctions or through force, unless--that is the option. I cannot imagine a world with Ayatollahs with nukes. It would create a nuclear arms race. The Senator just got back from Saudi Arabia. Sunni Arab nations would want their own nuclear weapon, and we would be on the road to Armageddon. Israel--my God, how could they sit on the sideline and watch a nuclear weapon be produced by people who threaten every day to wipe them off the map? We are hoping we can produce sanctions that would enable and enhance the administration's opportunity to get a peaceful resolution. Sanctions and diplomacy end the program in a peaceful way. This is our last chance. If we get this wrong, history will judge us poorly. They are trying to get a nuclear weapon. They are hellbent. The only thing that will stop them is pressure. I want to ask the Senator a question. Why are Japanese banks and other business entities rushing to do business with Iran when the interim deal--relief and sanctions--do you believe that the international community is of the mindset that the sanctions are breaking down, that they are trying to jump ahead of each other to do business with Iran, and that if Congress passed a new round of sanctions, it would stop that breakout? Do you think that makes sense?

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, I think the point Senator McCain is making is dead- on. Is it not true that our government has designated the Iranian regime--their government--as one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the world? Is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM. Now, here is the question. It is a good question. If they had a nuclear weapon, would they be likely to end such activity or would they be more effective in expanding it?

Mr. GRAHAM. Senator McCain is absolutely right. The interim deal does not dismantle the centrifuges. They are spinning as we talk. They disconnect, not dismantle, some advanced centrifuges that have been installed. What people need to realize is that the Iranians, over the last decade--particularly the last 3 years--have developed a very mature enrichment program: 18,000 centrifuges. They do not need 20-percent enriched uranium anymore for these new centrifuges to get to 90 percent, which would produce a uranium-based bomb; they can do it with a 3\1/2\-percent stockpile. So I guess this is the basic question for us as a nation and the world at large: Do you believe the Iranians when they say that they are not trying to develop a nuclear weapon, that they are only trying to develop peaceful nuclear power? Do you believe them when they make that claim given the reality of their enrichment program, their lying, and their cheating? If their goal is to enrich not for peaceful nuclear power purposes but to make a bomb, how do you get them to change their goal? I think what Senator McCain is pointing out is very important. The interim deal, like it or not, has legitimized enrichment in Iran. How do you go from not dismantling the plutonium reactor--complete dismantling, shutting down and dismantling the centrifuges--and turning the stockpile over to the international community after the interim deal--how do you go from there to the end game? We are so far away from an acceptable outcome. I hope people understand what the French are saying. The French are telling us they do not believe that the Iranian negotiators and the Iranian regime are serious about abandoning an enrichment program that could break out and produce a nuclear weapon. I appreciate Senator McCain's leadership on these issues. Syria, Iran--you name it, he has been there. I would like to ask this question to Senator McCain: Does the Senator believe the Iranians when they say they are not trying to acquire a nuclear weapon? From the U.S.-Israel point of view, what would happen to our nations if they had that capability?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I think the Senator is absolutely right. We have a legislative process that could rise to the occasion if we would use it. For 200 years we have been doing business a certain way, and the Senate is changing, all for the worse. Like I say, this is a bipartisan problem. I am not blaming Patty Murray, the Democratic chairman. This got into a bill that was bipartisan. It got 330 votes, 70 percent of the Republican Conference. We all make mistakes. But how did it get there? Nobody will tell me who put this in there because they do not know. So the Senator is right. I think our House colleagues would find the equities of the matter easy to resolve. They would come back and fix it in just no time. I think we could fix it. The offsets might be hard to find in terms of our ideological differences, but I think we could find some offsets to fix this pretty quickly. Yes, I say to Senator Sessions, the House would be able to do it too. One final plea. I would hope that as we go into the holiday season the acrimony that has been created in this body about different aspects of the way we run the place--that we do not miss a chance to do the right thing. They come on a lot here. It is not like we do not get a chance to do the right thing as Republicans and Democrats. We just both do not rise to the occasion enough. But here is a chance to do the right thing and a very necessary thing. Maybe if we rose to the occasion here, it might lead to doing more right things. I will leave here as an optimist and hope and pray we do the right thing while we still can. I yield.

Mr. GRAHAM. Just to respond, I think this is what happens when you are trying to get something done late in the year. We are all adults. We have had months to deal with these issues. I sort of hate the fact that you are dealing with important things like the Defense authorization bill a day or 2 before everybody wants to go home for Christmas. Eventually, that leads to $17 trillion in debt. How do you get to $17 trillion in debt? It takes bipartisanship.

Mr. GRAHAM. I do. Before I do, I wish to say that the Senator from Mississippi asked a question in our conference: Tell me what this costs our retirees. All of us on the Republican side looked at him, me included--me included--I didn't have a clue how to answer that, and when I found out it was $71,000, almost $72,000 for E-7, from 42 to 62, I about fell out of my chair. Now I know how you generate $6 billion. As to the Senator from New Hampshire, she was the first one to take this torch up and run with it, and I have been trying to help where I can. But I will yield for a question.

Mr. GRAHAM. No one party can get you there. This is the way you have run the place. What happens when you fill up the tree? You cannot fix things. Here is what is wrong with that. You cannot fix the things that politically are bad for you and expect the rest of us to go away quietly because we have something we want to do. So this filling of the tree process is not good for something this big, and I hope people would be responsible with their amendments. But, again, it goes back to how did this happen? I do not believe for a moment that Patty Murray or Paul Ryan meant to hurt disabled veterans. I do not believe that. I think the whole issue was not looked at. These things are put together very quickly. I am on the Budget Committee. The Senator from New Hampshire is on the Budget Committee. The Senator from Alabama is on the Budget Committee. I had no idea. Nobody asked me if this was a good idea. I did not even get to look at it. I got to read about it in the paper. That is what happens when you put the deals together with just a handful of people. You make mistakes, because the more eyes the better. You find yourself here talking about something, quite frankly, that we all know is wrong.

Mr. GRAHAM. That is a good question. The best way is to fix it before it passes, and we have until January 15. Nobody wants to shut the government down. Again, the budget deal is just about numbers. We have to actually appropriate. But I think we could. There are so many different ways. I have thrown out the idea of eliminating subsidies for people who make over $250,000 for their Part D premiums. It is $54 billion over 10 years. I am not asking my Democratic colleagues to go to food stamps and safety nets. I am not asking them to do that, and I am surely not going to ask the Republicans to raise taxes. There are better ways to do it. So I could not agree more with the Senator from New Hampshire. With a little bit of effort here in the next few hours or days, we could fix this in total.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. No. 1, I wish to say to our budget chairman we had a very good discussion with Senators Chambliss and Isakson about trying to figure out a way to fix this provision in the budget deal. I am very disappointed we can't have an amendment to fix it or amendments to do other things, but we are where we are. So the bottom line is this has been a healthy exercise because all of us are now looking at the provision. This is a bipartisan product, so it is not about blaming Democrats or Republicans. It is a good exercise. How could a bill--this bill, as we all know, doesn't fund the government. If we pass the budget--and I am sure it will pass here eventually--it doesn't keep the government open; it sets limits on spending where we are increasing the amount we can spend on defense and nondefense, setting sequestration aside. That is a great thing. I think that is going to be good. How we pay for it is the problem. The question is, How did this happen? The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and the chairman in the House are great folks. The military retiree provision is a pay-for that has everybody wondering a bit and, upon a second evaluation, is probably certainly not the right thing to do. In May of 2014, there will be a commission that was set up by the Congress to tell us how best to reform military pay and benefits, because they are unsustainable, quite frankly, in the future. But we put in that Commission report a requirement that any reform could not affect those who are in the service now; they are grandfathered. I think the reason the Congress did that is we don't want to break faith with those who signed up for deal A. They are doing their part of the deal. They are serving. The Congress is looking for a way to make these programs more sustainable by applying it in the future, which I think we should do. About the civilian employee contribution to their retirement program, that is prospective. The one thing I was disappointed about is the money doesn't go into the retirement plan to pay for the deal. I wish to acknowledge what Senator Warren has been doing with every Gang of 6, 12, 8, 10, 14--just different numbers--trying to find a way. I know entitlement programs are the source of the problem for the Nation over the long term, and military retirement programs such as TRICARE we have to look at as a retirement system. That is not a problem. But we are in a hurry to basically pass a budget that generally I support. It gets us out of the situation of sequestration. But how did this happen? How could we have picked a pay-for such as this which is, to me, unacceptable. The military retirement community, up to the age of 62, will have their COLA reduced by 1 percent. That doesn't sound like a lot, but the compounding of that goes like this: If a person is a master sergeant who retires after 20 years of service in 2015 at, say, 42, by the time that person gets to 62, the effect of this bill will cost him or her $71,000. That is the compounding effect of money. No one has ever suggested it should be applied to people who are almost at retirement or in retirement when it comes to how we reform benefits. My good friend Senator McCain, who has earned every penny he has ever gotten in retirement and then some, mentioned the Bowles-Simpson Commission. I am a general fan of Bowles-Simpson: reform entitlements and flatten out the Tax Code and, yes, pay down some debt. I am a Republican. It would eliminate the deduction in the Tax Code and apply some of the money to the debt, not put it all in tax cuts, because when we are $17 trillion in debt, we have to do things we would otherwise not like. I am willing to do that. But Bowles-Simpson did not, as my friend Senator McCain suggests, adopt eliminating COLAs before 62 as part of their solution. They wanted to find $70 billion over 10 years for Federal workforce entitlement reform. They created a commission, the Federal Workforce Entitlement Task Force Commission, to reevaluate civil service, military health and retirement programs. They did not say we are going to eliminate COLAs entirely for the military and civilian workers; they said, we need a commission to look are to how to find $70 billion over the next 10 years. The examples they gave of what we might look at is use the highest 5 years of earnings to calculate the civil service pension benefits for new retirees, defer cost-of- living adjustment is the second one, adjust the ratio of employer- employee contributions to Federal employee pension plans to equalize contributions, which saves $4 billion. These were examples. They wanted a commission. Guess what. So did the Congress. In 2013-- this came out in 2010--the Congress said let's form a commission to look at this. The problem is the Commission hasn't reported back to us. They are not due to do so until May 2014. We did put a prohibition on the Commission's work product: You have to grandfather existing servicemembers. You can't retroactively apply any of your reforms. So Bowles-Simpson did not say we are going to eliminate all COLAs; they said, form a commission, and that was one example of what to look at. The Congress did form a commission. The commission is not back yet. But the Congress told the Commission to grandfather people who are in the current system, but we forgot to tell ourselves that because this pay-for is retroactive in nature and applies to all retirees, past, present, and future. The disability component, the people who drafted this assumed disability retirees would not be included. They are. The $600 million, CBO says, of the $6.3 billion that this provision generates in revenue to help pay for the deal--$600 million comes from the disability retired community, and I think we all understand that is not the right thing to do. Someone has lost a limb in Afghanistan or Iraq who is disabled, can't work, they get benefits outside of disability retirement, and they have earned those benefits. But reducing their COLAs would add thousands of dollars, tens of thousands of dollars in lost benefits. Nobody wants to do that. They thought they weren't included. They are. Let me just say as someone who has been around the military--I am a military lawyer, so I am not a frontline military person by any means. I have tried to be the best military lawyer I can be. I have been in the military for 30 years. I love the culture, love the environment, and I try to be part of the team. The military lawyer is part of the team. The pilots who go fly and face danger, they are the heroes. The maintenance guys and the guys on the frontlines in the Army, to them goes the glory. The bottom line is I don't think it is fair for us to consider. If you are in the MRAP that didn't get hit by the IED and you made it through your tour, you have earned your retirement just as much as anybody else, and that disabled retiree needs the money more than anybody. They get things the average military retiree doesn't because their needs are greater. All I am doing is begging the body: Let's not pass a budget deal with a pay-for that violates our own Commission requirements, that in hindsight is not the message we want to send to those who serve now. It is not a good way to recruit. Let's see if we can fix this. Let's see if we can fix it before it gets into law, because once we get something into law, we all know how hard it is to take it out.

Mr. GRAHAM. The unraveling effect is what people worry about. If you fix it for the military retirees, what about the civilians? I am willing to look at that. But the bottom line is they fought hard. They fought long. They have earned what they got. We should not retroactively diminish their retirement. They have worried enough. Let's do not give them anything to worry about for the holidays. Let's take this one off the table.

Mr. GRAHAM. We need to fix it. We are creating a lot of anxiety for people who are going through enough anxiety. I hope we can rise to the occasion here at the end.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank my colleague very much. My first thought is that America is not nearly as aware as we should be about the threats of a cyber attack that could come from a terrorist organization, a nation state, or a criminal enterprise. We are a week before Christmas. We are going to be debating about how to deal with the NSA program and reforms that make it more acceptable to the American people. I wish to lend my voice to the three Senators who have already spoken and, quite frankly, are far more knowledgeable about the technological aspects of this. But when I look out over the next decade and I try to figure, Where are the threats against the American people coming from--well, first it is our debt problem, but we are not going to get into that today--when you look outside for foreign threats, obviously, radical Islam presents a threat to us all--just remember 9/11--but this emerging cyber threat really just scares the hell out of me. The FBI, the military, the CIA are telling us daily how the threat is growing. The Congress could not get there, so the President had to take over by executive order. We had a couple good bipartisan proposals, legislative changes. Senator Whitehouse's idea of incentivizing the private sector, creating a fort cyber where you will get rewarded, there will be no limited liability if you harden your infrastructure in the energy sector and other important financial sectors. Rewarding people for upgrading their systems to harden them against terrorist attack or criminal activity I think is a smart way to go. It is a complicated area of the economy and a complicated potential enemy to deal with, but this legislation I think is a good starting point. I compliment Senator Whitehouse, who has been really helpful. Senator Blunt on the Republican side has been our leading voice, along with Senator Chambliss, to try to bring awareness to the body. Senator Blumenthal, as a former attorney general, understands very much the threats we face from a criminal enterprise, but he has also been very good on national security. So a week before Christmas in 2013 we are trying to raise awareness because I am afraid if we do not get our house in order against cyber attacks, sooner rather than later, we will all regret it. Thank you for allowing me to be part of this effort. I yield.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. In all honesty, the provision does not take effect for a year or two. But I think what the Senator is saying is so important. Why leave any doubt in people's mind? They have enough to worry about already. Life is hard for all of us. For some people life is just incredibly hard. I have lived a fortunate life. But for a military retiree who is not disabled, it matters to them. So we should not create stress where none is needed. They have been stressed out enough. The last 10 years have been hard as hell for them--multiple deployments. Senator Warner and all of us would go overseas. You would see the same people. I would do small Reserve tours just for a few days in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am seeing the same people in Afghanistan who I saw in Iraq in my career field of being a JAG working on detention matters. I do not think the average American-- they appreciate but I do not think they really understand how hard this has been on 1 percent of the American people. So wouldn't it be nice if they did not have to worry and we could get this issue behind us? Because here is the truth of the matter: It may come as a shock to the body, but we are not in very good standing right now. That is a bipartisan problem. Here is the concern. The main things that have been fixed that are wrong? Not a whole lot. It is hard to fix things.

Mr. GRAHAM. Absolutely.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, what I am trying to do is this: We were told to come down here at 4 o'clock. I was glad to be able to discuss things earlier. So what I would like to talk about, with the Chair's permission, is the military retiree provision.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator. To follow on what Senator Wicker said, I have been trying to find out how this started to begin with too. Whose good idea was this? So I called the Secretary of Defense, and he said: We did not do this. I talked to Chuck Hagel, and he said: This did not come from us. Because I said: What are you all doing over there? Please understand, Senator Graham, this did not come from us. I think Senator Wicker knows the exact number. But if you are a military retiree, on your DD214 form--I do not know if the Senator from Alabama knows this, but when you get your retirement, your discharge DD214 form, at the bottom it says: Subject to being recalled. Does the Senator know how many military retirees have been recalled since 9/11?