Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you. I would argue we can't possibly understand all he knows about Benghazi in the last 20 years of terrorism by holding him on a ship for less than 2 weeks. He should be held at Gitmo as long as it takes to find out what he knows and then he should be tried. Does the Senator from New Hampshire agree with that?

Mr. GRAHAM. What are the odds that he was in Tripoli before the Benghazi attack, had a record of bombing embassies in the 1990s, and had nothing to do with the consulate attack in Benghazi? The Senator from New Hampshire is a prosecutor. What does my colleague think the odds are of this guy not having any knowledge or involvement in killing our Ambassador in Benghazi and being involved in the attack on our consulate that was organized by Al Qaeda affiliates? And what have we learned, if anything, about his potential involvement in Benghazi? How can we learn everything this man has done in 11 or 12 days before we give him a lawyer? I would argue we can't.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from New Hampshire who has been one of the strongest voices since the day she got here in the Senate to talk about the difference between fighting a war and fighting a crime. The Senator has been the attorney general of New Hampshire, and I have been a military lawyer for over 30 years. The legal systems to fight a war are different than the legal systems to solve a domestic crime. Here is the problem: Do I believe Al Qaeda is at war with the United States and our values and our friends? Would they kill us all if they could? Yes. Why did 3,000 Americans die on 9/11/2001? They couldn't kill 3 million of us. If they could, they would have. If you believe that, then the goal of our generation is to marginalize this movement, and when we capture one of them, we need to find out what they are up to. Dying for their cause is not a deterrent. It is like first prize. So when you tell somebody who has joined Al Qaeda that you may die in the course of this attack, they say good. The goal is to prevent them from hitting us, and the best way to do that is through intelligence gathering. When you capture someone who is determined by our military and intelligence community to be a member of Al Qaeda, then under the law of war--the authorization to use military force passed by Congress over a decade ago--you can hold that person under the law of war to gather intelligence. Why is that the case? War is about winning the war. Enemy prisoners are valuable captured alive because they can provide information about what the enemy is up to. When you charge someone with a crime, you cannot spend a long time with them without their lawyer trying figure out if they committed the crime because of the right against self-incrimination in our criminal justice system. The military legal system, and the law of war, is completely different when it comes to asking questions of an enemy prisoner about future military activity or what they know about past operations. The most dangerous thing we could do as a nation is to treat a captured Al Qaeda terrorist as a common criminal, read them their Miranda rights, and put them in civilian court before we have a chance to gather intelligence. That is exactly what the Obama administration did here. To their credit, they captured al-Libi. Here is what breaks my heart the most: The special forces units that go into Libya, Somalia, and Pakistan risk their lives to capture these people alive, if possible, so we can gather intelligence. It really does bother me that after completing this operation, which was very successful, we only had control of this enemy prisoner for about 10 or 11 days. I will never be convinced that in that short period of time we were able to gather the intelligence he possessed. He has been associated with Al Qaeda at the highest level for 20 years. He was a treasure trove of information. This was a political decision by the Obama administration, not a legal decision based on the law of war. This is not what our military advises or our intelligence community advises. This is what the President chose to do because he does not want to use Guantanamo Bay. Why was he placed on a ship? Because there is no prison available in the United States, other than a naval vessel, to hold someone as an enemy combatant under the law of war. Why? Because the President refuses to use Guantanamo Bay. If we can close Guantanamo Bay and create a new prison to allow people to be held as enemy combatants, sign me up. But the idea of not having a jail available to the United States on land at a time of great stress, and during a very pivotal moment in the war on terror, is an ill-conceived and dangerous policy. I applaud the Senator from New Hampshire for bringing up this issue. Here is what we need to understand as Members of Congress: This policy cannot be sustained. When we capture high-value targets, such as a 20-year veteran of Al Qaeda, we are crazy as a nation not to use the law of war to gather intelligence. I am not for torturing anyone. I have been a military lawyer for 31 years. I believe in the Geneva Conventions. I believe my country is special. I believe in the international regimes about how we interrogate prisoners we hold. I know what Al Qaeda does to their prisoners. I do not want to be like them. I want to be the United States. But the United States has a right, under the law of war, to gather intelligence. The last thing a member of Al Qaeda should hear when they are captured is: You have a right to remain silent. Here is your lawyer. I don't want them to remain silent. I want them, over time, to provide us with whatever intelligence is available. Why was he moved off the ship? Apparently, he had a medical condition that could not be treated on the naval vessel. I believe in providing quality health care to prisoners of war simply because I want that standard to be available to our soldiers in future wars. The standard we set today will follow us into the next war and, unfortunately, there will be. But having to take him off the ship because he was sick is no excuse to stop his interrogation to gather intelligence. Putting him on the ship because we don't want to use Guantanamo Bay is an ill-conceived and ill-designed strategy that, if it is not changed or replaced, is going to come back to haunt this country. This man possesses an enormous amount of intelligence potential. He is now in Federal court. He will be given a lawyer. Once he is charged with a crime, he should be given a lawyer. But before that, we have the right under the law of war to hold him to gather intelligence--treat him humanely but question him about what he knows about Al Qaeda, because they are still out there, lurking. I will end with this. I wish to work with the Senator from New Hampshire and anybody on the other side who would like to try to find a detention and interrogation policy that is more rationally based. Guantanamo Bay, in its early years, did hurt the image of this country. Some of our interrogation techniques right after 9/11 hurt us as a nation. Guantanamo Bay has been reformed. It is Geneva Convention compliant. The Detainee Treatment Act that I helped author with Senator Levin and Senator McCain is the gold standard of how we treat people under the law of war. I am proud of the system we have created over the last several years in a bipartisan manner, and I urge this administration to create a vehicle to interrogate under the law of war people such as al- Libi so we can be prepared for the next attack. The policy they have in place today is going to deny this country the ability to gather valuable intelligence. When it comes to defeating Al Qaeda, the more we know about how they behave and what they are up to the safer we will be, because they will not be deterred by the threat of death. We cannot deter them; we have to stop them. We have to hit them before they hit us, and the best way to do that is to gather intelligence when we find someone such as al- Libi. I am very disappointed that we have blown it when it comes to intelligence gathering with this high-value target. I am very sad to report to the military members and their families that the bravery they have demonstrated and shown just a few weeks ago has been undermined, in my view, by an irrational political decision that denies our country the ability to learn from a high-value target they risked their life to capture. I don't know how to fix this in the current political environment, but I know as a military lawyer it needs to be fixed, and I know we are not elevating our country by diminishing our ability to use legal systems that have been around for hundreds of years at a time when we need them the most. So I look forward to working with the Senator from New Hampshire who has become one of the leading voices when it comes to detention and interrogation under the law of war.

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRAHAM. We are throwing around names. I think Zawahiri is the person who took bin Laden's place. If we captured him tomorrow, that would be the ultimate treasure trove.

Mr. GRAHAM. Can the Senator from New Hampshire tell us a little bit about this individual called al-Libi? Why do we believe he would be such a treasure trove? What is his background? How long has he been involved in Al Qaeda? And what have we missed here? What opportunities have we lost by only holding him as an enemy combatant for less than 2 weeks?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, if the Senator from New Hampshire will yield for one more inquiry. He was captured in Tripoli, Libya; is that right?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, thank you. The idea that ObamaCare--the Affordable Health Care Act--over time will be seen in history as having been a good thing for the American people, I guess that is a bit in doubt. The President keeps saying there will come a day when we will look back and claim to have voted for this. Maybe he is right. Maybe that day, around the bend, down the road, over the hill, is there. All I can say is don't we know enough now about the Affordable Health Care Act--ObamaCare--to slow down, take a time out, and see if we can make it better? Because the problems associated with the act are real. We do not need any more information. We do not need any more time. We just need to fix it in a bipartisan fashion. We passed it in a partisan fashion. Can we begin to look at the law anew in a bipartisan fashion? America would be better off. What do we know? We know a lot of people are working 29 hours, when they had 40-hour work. If you do not believe me, ask the unions. I never thought I would live to say this: Just listen to the unions. I do not say that a lot about their positions, but they are telling the President and anybody who will listen that ObamaCare--the Affordable Health Care Act--is denying the 40-hour workweek. Why can't we do something about that? The medical device manufacturers, the people who do all the very neat things to make life better, particularly for people who have been devastated in Iraq and Afghanistan, coming up with ways to make better the lives of people who had catastrophic injury--thirty-four of our Democratic friends have said this tax is not a good idea for that sector of the economy. So the jury is in on enough for us to slow down and start over and get this thing right. The good news for today is that we are not going to agree to blame each other. They are not going to accept blame. We are not going to accept blame about where we are. But the one thing today is I think we have solved the problem, at least partially, for the military. The people on the civilian side who work for the military, I do not know if they are covered. But I want America to understand that the Congress did something appropriate just a few minutes ago; that is, to tell the men and women in the military: Do not worry about this debacle up here in Washington when it comes to your paycheck. You are going to get paid. I will talk later on down the road about what kind of military we are handing to the next generation, what kind of funding we have for the military and how smart sequestration is. But I just want to ask my colleagues, don't we know enough already about the Affordable Health Care Act to stop and work together before we plunge on, because it starts tomorrow. I do not know why our Democratic friends are so insistent that we cannot take a timeout, start over, and see if we can find some bipartisan consensus. Until we do that, this problem only gets worse. I would conclude with this thought: The Democratic Party came up with the Affordable Care Act. They passed it on a party-line vote. But this thing is just not helping Democrats or hurting Republicans, it is hurting the economy as a whole. So the one thing I can tell you about big ideas: When one party pushes it through and nobody else on the other side signs up, we need to be wary about that product. I yield.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. First, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Florida. Now is the time to be creative with our assistance to Egypt to try to change things while there is still hope of things changing in a positive direction. I certainly understand. Why should we be selling F-16s to people who behave this way? The administration has put on hold the four F-16s that were due to be delivered to Egypt, trying to find out what is going to happen next. That makes sense to me. But why are we selling weapons to Egypt? It is because if we do not, someone else will. I want them to have F-16s and come to our pilot training bases. I want Egyptian officers to come to our military training academies. I want a relationship with the Egyptian military that can be beneficial to our national security interests. I want the people who build F-16s in America to get the business from Egypt to get some of our money back. If they buy MIGs or Mirages we lose that. It is not a question of if they are going to buy fighter planes; it is a question of who they are going to buy them from. We have every right to withhold sales. We have every right to put them on hold temporarily. But to just sever this relationship now would be a huge mistake. In fairness to Senator Paul, he says we would resume aid once they get their act together and move back toward democracy. I think that is something worth noting. That is an understanding on his part that he is looking for an outcome that we can be more supportive of. The difference I have is that if we cut off aid now, then I cannot tell you the consequences of what that would mean in terms of moving in the direction we would all like. Unintended consequences to the decision jump out pretty clearly in my mind, and most of them are bad. Is it a coup? It certainly looks like one. It certainly sounds like one. But at the end of the day, if we are moving toward democracy and the military steps back and democratically elected leaders take over, I think that is the goal for all of us. I wish we did not live in a world like we do. I wish things were easier. I wish the Arab Spring had been more successful. But the one thing I can say is that what happens in Egypt really does matter to us. If the largest country in the Arab world, the heart of the Arab world, Egypt, becomes a failed state, I promise you it will affect our national security interests for decades to come. It would be a nightmare for Israel, and it would take the whole region down a path that would be at best chaotic. Can we prevent a failed state in Egypt? I think we can. I don't know for sure what is going to happen, but I do know this: If America does not try, if we do not stay engaged and shape history rather than observe it, we will pay a heavy price as a nation. So part of this amendment takes money that would be going to the Egyptian military and puts it on projects in the United States. I think one is a bridge in Kentucky. I have no doubt that there is a need for bridges in Kentucky and South Carolina. I would love to get my port deepened. But to the people of Kentucky and to the people of South Carolina, if we stop the 1 percent of our budget--it is $50 billion. That is no small sum. But if we cancelled it all out and just left $3 billion for Israel--it seems everybody likes that idea. If we had $3 billion to spend on affecting the world, is that smart? How much of the debt would be retired if we canceled all foreign aid and brought it back into the United States? Not a whole lot. But here is what I believe would happen. If America withdrew our foreign assistance, a lot of bad things would happen to us. Having a say, having influence in a world that is increasingly dangerous seems to me to be a good idea. I am tired of having to resort to the military as the only solution to affect things. The people in Egypt, the government particularly, wants a relationship with us. They have to earn it, as Senator Rubio said. But to cut off our relationship with Egypt at this critical time, I think, would be extremely ill-advised, and the consequences to the people of Kentucky and South Carolina and every other State in the Union would be significant. To my colleagues, when you cast your vote today about pausing, not terminating aid, but trying to reconstruct aid, I don't know how that fits in a 30-second sound bite. It is probably easier to explain the ``no'' vote than it is a ``yes'' vote. But I do know this: Your country would be well served if you decide today to pause and wait to find out the right answer in Egypt. I do know this: If Egypt goes, the entire region blows up. The biggest fear I have is radical Islamists are closer to getting nuclear weapons and chemical weapons than any time in my lifetime. If Egypt becomes a failed state, that is one more problem for us to have to deal with, rather than focusing on the Iranian efforts to march toward a nuclear weapon. Radical Islam has not forgotten about us. The question for us is have we forgotten about radical Islam. If we wish to stop this march in the Middle East of radical Islam getting stronger and stronger and stronger, let's try to hang on to our relationship with Egypt. If it becomes a failed state, and the Sinai becomes one of the great safe havens for terrorist groups--and the Egyptian Army, to their credit, is now involved with the Sinai--the cataclysmic effect of a failed state in Egypt would be the biggest boost to radical Islam I could think of. It would do a lot of damage to our national security and our best friend in the region, Israel. I have a letter from our APAC. I asked them to comment on this. They state: Dear Senators Menendez and Corker: We are writing to express our concerns over the Paul amendment to the Transportation/HUD Appropriations bill that would eliminate military assistance and sales to Egypt. We do not support cutting off all assistance to Egypt at this time, as we believe it could increase the instability in Egypt and undermine important U.S. interests and negatively impact our Israeli ally. As you know, Egypt is the largest Arab state in the Middle East and has played a vital role in advancing key U.S. interests in that region. Citing just two examples, the government of Egypt has maintained the peace with Israel and is taking important steps to address the instability in the Sinai. Events in Egypt are rapidly evolving, and we believe that for now the United States should avoid taking any precipitous actions against Egypt such as cutting off all assistance. We look forward to continuing to work with you on these critical issues. One final thought: Maybe one day I will agree with Senator Paul in saying we have to sever our ties with the Egyptian military and the Egyptian people. Maybe one day I will come and cosponsor the Senator's amendment or maybe come up with one of my own. I can tell you if that day ever comes, it will be one of the saddest days of my life because that would mean Egypt is gone. If Egypt is gone, all hell is going to break loose.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. OK. That is fine.

Mr. GRAHAM. Two minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I hate to interrupt the Senator. Would the Senator be willing to yield for 2 minutes so I can thank some people on the immigration bill? I promise I will take no more than 2 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to all my Senate colleagues, today was a good day, a historic day for the Senate. Thank you all, whether you opposed or supported the bill. It was a great debate. To the staff, this bill could have died a thousand times. You would not let it. To Matt Rimkunas, you are awesome. Sergio Sarkany and David Glaccum of my staff, thank you for endless hours of work below minimum wage. Mark Delich, in Senator McCain's office, thank you for working for Senator McCain. Your reward will be in Heaven. Chandler Morse, you are awesome working for Senator Jeff Flake. Enrique Gonzalez, you are one of the smartest people I have ever met. Jon Baselice, Senator Marco Rubio was a game changer. Leon Fresco was the star of the show. Stephanie Martz, you kept Leon and Senator Schumer from killing each other. Well done. Joe Zogby, thank you for being a strong voice. Kerri Talbot, for Senator Bob Menendez, you always reminded us we are dealing with people. And to Sergio Gonzalez, in Senator Michael Bennet's office, you all were an incredible calming force. To Senator Hatch, you came into the debate at a time when we needed a lift. Orrin Hatch, I want to thank you profusely for jumping into the debate, adding to the momentum that was created by the so-called Gang of 8. You provided momentum in committee. It meant a lot. To Kelly Ayotte, you jumped on board at a time when people were talking about what was bad with the bill. You came out to give us a No. 5, along with Senator Hatch, to give it momentum. That was an act of tremendous political courage and you did the country a service by standing up and standing out at a time when it was tough. To Senators Hoeven and Corker, you put us over the top. I have never enjoyed working with two people more. But Senator Bob Corker and Senator John Hoeven, your efforts to come up with a new amendment, along with Senator Hatch and Senator Ayotte, really made the difference. I wanted to recognize these people--that they came along at a time when America needed them--and this bill is the result of the hard work of many people at the staff level, but key Senators who were not in the original bipartisan group came to the aid of the cause at a time we needed it. I will yield. Thank you very much for allowing me to say these words.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, if I may, I say thank you to my good friend from Alabama. He is consistent. He has conducted himself incredibly well. He is a man of passion, and I agree with David Cameron and Jeff Sessions. Let's have a debate about immigration. But I am in the camp of let's stop talking about it and start doing something. This bill, in my view, is a giant step forward in many ways; No. 1, for the Senate. We are at 10 or 12 percent in approval rating for the Congress. My question is, Who are the 10 or 12 percent and what bill do they like? I am in the body and I don't disapprove of what we have been doing here. But I see this as a significant step toward the Senate being able to work together in a bipartisan fashion to do something that matters. Is this bill perfect? No. Is it like Senator Sessions described? No. It is a good solution to hard problems that can always be made better. But to the American people, you have to be frustrated by your Congress not being able to do the hard things or sometimes even the simple things. This should give people a little bit of hope that for the first time since 2007, the Senate, in a bipartisan fashion, is about to pass legislation on an important topic that is emotionally tough but needs to be dealt with. To the critics, I appreciate the debate this time around. It has been so much better, but some of the criticism I am going to address. Senator Rubio spoke in the most eloquent fashion about his family's history and about who we are as Americans. But everybody has a story. Marco's story is an exceptional story. I am the first person in my family to go to college. Neither one of my parents graduated high school. My dad and mom ran a restaurant, a liquor store, and a pool room, and I learned everything I needed to know about politics in the pool room--a great place to learn about people. But one of the critics of this bill, one of the organizations, said that the average illegal immigrant has a 10th-grade education. All I can tell you is you have a Senator who came from parents who did not have a 10th-grade education. To those who believe that how long you go to school determines your character, how much money is in the bank determines your worth, they do not understand America. Only in America can you do what Senator Rubio has done. My parents have long since passed. When I was 21, my mom died; 17 years younger than my dad. We thought he would go first, but life is not so understandable and predictable. She went first and 15 months later he passed. As my sister was 12, an aunt and uncle helped raise my sister. They never made over $30,000 in their life. They worked in textile plants. She has turned out great in spite of having an overbearing brother. But I am in the Senate today. Why? Because I live in a country where anything is possible. There are a lot of self-made people in America. I am not one of them. If it were not for my family and my friends, I would not be here today. To those who say that among this illegal immigrant population they are just not well educated, you have no idea how offensive that is to a guy like me. So you can take your criticism and--we will just end it at that. Eighty million baby boomers are going to retire in the next 40 years. To my good friend from Alabama, who believes we have too much legal immigration, I am taking Strom Thurmond's place. He got married and started having kids when he was 67. Unless all of us start doing that, we have a problem because in 1955 there were 16 workers for every Social Security retiree; today there are three and in 20 years there is going to be two. Unless there is a baby boom that I don't see coming-- and I am part of problem. I am not married and I don't have any kids. Unless there is a baby boom we don't see, we better hope we can improve our legal immigration system. To my good friend from Alabama, I could not disagree with him more. We are going to need a lot more legal immigration than is in this bill. I wish we could do more. Who is going to take care of the baby boomers when we retire? Who is going to replace the workers in our economy if we do not have better legal immigration? What did the CBO say about this bill? If we pass this bill, over the next 20 years we reduce the deficit by $890 billion. How can that be? That means it is good for the economy. How can you reduce the deficit $890 billion if you do not create economic activity? To the American worker, the biggest threat to you is illegal immigration. Tell me how it is better for America to continue amnesty-- which is doing nothing and paying people under the table with no regulation. How did that help the American worker to compete against some person who is being paid under the table? This bill stops that. It brings people out of the shadows on our terms, not theirs. You get to stay here if we decide you can stay. We are regaining our sovereignty that has been lost. How do you get 11 million illegal immigrants in this country? Your system is broken from top to bottom. Every nation, including America, has the right to control its borders and control who gets a job and this bill does that and I am glad to have my name on it--and doing nothing is the worst thing for the American worker. We are going to stop paying people under the table. We are going to give you access to labor you have today if you can't find it. Have you ever been to a meatpacking plant? You go and find out who is working in that plant. Mostly Hispanics, people from other parts of the world, not because native-born Americans are lazy; we have higher hopes. There are parts of our economy, like it or not, that are dependent upon immigrant labor and our population is declining and our needs for legal immigration are growing. This bill does that. As it affects the economy, it will increase our GDP by 3.5 percent over time because it is good for America to have legal immigration. As to the 11 million, you will be brought out of the shadows and you will stay on our terms. If they committed a felony or multiple misdemeanors, they are not eligible. Here is what we are going to allow: They will go through a criminal background check, pay a fine, get right with the law, and then they will have legal status. Here is what they will get to do: They will get to pay taxes, like the rest of us, and get to know the IRS. Welcome to America. We are going to create order out of chaos. We are going to get people working and paying in rather than taking out under the table. What we are going to do above all else, ladies and gentlemen, is we are going to prove to ourselves that we can work together for the common good. I have never been more proud to be involved in an issue than I have trying to fix illegal immigration because it is a national security threat, it is an economic threat, and it is a cultural threat. As to my politics, I am doing great among Hispanics in South Carolina. The bad news is that there are not very many who vote in the Republican primary. I think the good news for me is I have tried working with my colleagues, the Gang of 8, and our staffs to start a process that will pay great dividends. To Senators Grassley and Leahy, thank you. To the Democratic and Republican Members, thank you so much. I have never been more proud to be in the Senate than I am today. To my critics, I respect their criticism. I thank them for a healthy debate. To the American people, slowly but surely we are beginning to come together in your Senate, the greatest deliberative body in history, to do important work. And to the 11 million, you will have a second chance. Take advantage of it. Embrace the fact that you are being given a second chance. To the American people, our best days lie ahead, and what makes us special--and I will close with this--is that being French means you are French, being German means you are German. Being an American means nothing about where you come from, your race, religion, background, or ethnic origin. Being an American is an idea that so many people embrace. Ladies and gentlemen, being an American is something everybody wants to be part of, apparently. Unfortunately, we cannot allow everybody in or it will create a chaotic situation. I thank Senator Durbin, who has protected the American worker, but I want to tell my colleagues in the Senate that this is a day I have been hoping and waiting for. Thank you all so very much.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I appreciate that, I say to the Senator. I would like to say to Senator Cowan, ``Mo,'' from Massachusetts: I haven't known you very long, but I have found you to be someone who has been, quite frankly, very earnest in their time in the Senate, very smart, and a lot of fun. We got to travel to Egypt, to Turkey, to Israel to see some of the more dangerous places in the world, and I just want to let the people of Massachusetts know that I have met a lot of colleagues in my time here, but this is one fine man. I wish you all the best. I have learned a lot from you. I know you are originally from North Carolina. That is probably why we hit it off. I have learned a lot and I have laughed a lot. You are a fine man and we wish you well. I hope that maybe public service is in your future, but whatever you do, I know you will do it well. Godspeed.

Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator yield for a second? I hate to interrupt.

Mr. GRAHAM. I will buy the Senator's book. May I have 1 minute to say something about our departing colleague because I may not be able to get back. Literally, 1 minute.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank all who made this better. To Senator Cornyn's question about cost: I never objected to more Border Patrol agents. I didn't know how we would pay for the bill. I hoped it would be deficit neutral. Boy, did my hopes come true. It is not deficit neutral. According to the Congressional Budget Office, we reduce the deficit in the first 10 years by $190 billion and over a 20- year period $700 billion. So the reason I didn't want to agree to 5,000 agents without somebody showing me how we would pay for it, we are borrowing enough money from our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to run the government. We don't need to do any more borrowing unless we absolutely have to. The good news is the bill we have written will create economic growth in the country at a time when we need economic growth. It will allow employers access to labor they don't have today so they won't be tempted to cheat in the future. This bill helps the economy. Don't take my word for it, take CBO's word for it. If you had some more money to spend in this bill, how would you want to spend it? Let me tell you what Senator Graham would wish to do. He would wish to hire 20,000 Border Patrol agents to let everybody in the country know I get it when we say we have got to secure the border. You are right, we have had two waves of illegal immigration. We don't need a third. And why are we doing this? Why 20,000 Border Patrol agents? That is three brigades of troops. That is taking the equivalent of three brigades of Army troops, trained law enforcement officers, to supplement the 20,000 we have. We will have a Border Patrol agent every thousand feet on the border 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It costs over $20 billion, but I can tell you this: It is money well spent, because it makes the border more secure, which helps us with our sovereignty. Why are we hiring 20,000 agents on top of the 20,000 we have? Because our country can't control who comes in. We cannot maintain our sovereignty if every 10 and 20 years 3 million to 11 million illegal immigrants come into our country. If you want the border secure, as I do, your ship has come in. The 20,000 are now affordable and they are needed. The 700 miles of fence will be built because it is needed. The $3.2 billion of technology that has been proven to work in Iraq and Afghanistan will go to the border because it will help back up the Border Patrol agents. As to my good friend from Texas: How do we know all this works? The bill requires us to hire the agents and put them on the border before you can transition to green card. It is not talking about hiring the agents, it is not talking about training them. You have got to hire and deploy. The bill also says the fence has to be built. The bill says the $3.2 billion of new technology that worked in Iraq and Afghanistan has to be purchased, deployed, and operational. Here is my belief: If you hire the Border Patrol agents and you put them on the border, they are not going to read a comic book. They are going to do their job. You don't need to prove to me they are going to do their job. You just need to get them on the border so they can do their job. And if you have the 18 drones versus the 6, you don't need to prove to me somebody will fly them. They will fly them. If you have the technology deployed and operational in addition to the drones, the VADER radar and the sensors, people will look at the radar because they want to protect our country. What has been missing is capacity. This is a border surge. We have militarized our border, almost. Why? Because we have lost our sovereignty. We have lost the ability to control who comes into America. My belief is if you can't get a green card until all of this is purchased and deployed, that is enough. There will come a point to where it is enough. Ladies and gentlemen, I have been working on this for almost a decade with Senator McCain. I can look anybody in the eye and tell them that if you put 20,000 Border Patrol agents on the border in addition to the 20,000 we have--that is one every thousand feet--that will work. If you buy technology that helped us fight and create success in Iraq when we did the surge, that will help the Border Patrol agents. If you build a fence, that all helps. So I don't need any more than getting it in place. Finally, to my good friend from Tennessee and my good friend from North Dakota: The bill when we wrote it I thought was good, but they have made it a lot better. To anybody in America who believes border security should be robust and it is a national security priority, we have in every sense of the term ``reasonable'' met that goal. We couldn't have done it without more people. To the Gang of 8 Members, it has been a joy to work on this bill. To our colleagues who have weighed in and tried to get the bill better and get to yes, you are doing this country a great service. I hope Monday night we will pass legislation that will mandate that 20,000 additional Border Patrol agents will be on the border working before you can get a green card; that the technology that worked in Afghanistan and Iraq will be up and operational before you can get a green card; the fence will be built before you get a green card. And to me, ladies and gentlemen, that is enough. That is enough. The people we are talking about deserve a hard-earned process to get into America. They need to pay a fine, learn our language, get in the back of the line, and they need to earn their way into good standing. But they are people. I am very pleased to support what I think is the most dramatic amendment in the history of our country to secure our border at a time when we need it secured.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I wish to add my voice to the President's decision to act, because I think action by the United States and the international community is required. What does it matter to the average American that we contain this war in Syria and that it ends sooner rather than later? As to chemical weapons that have now been acknowledged to be used by Asad against his own people, my goal is to make sure they are not used against us, Israel, or our allies throughout the world. If we don't stop this war, the chemical weapons caches--numbers in the hundreds of thousands of weapons--could be used to be deployed to kill thousands of Americans or Israelis or people who are aligned with us. The President's decision to intervene comes from an escalation of the use of chemical weapons by Asad. As Senator McCain has indicated, the threats to our country are not just from the chemical weapons but from a regional deterioration. I say to the sitting President of the Senate today, we were in Jordan. The Jordanian Government has to accommodate over 550,000 Syrian refugees. Sixty thousand Syrian children are attending Jordanian schools. The economy in Jordan is about to collapse. If we lose the King of Jordan, we have lost one of the last moderate voices in the Middle East. This war has a ripple effect. It is affecting Turkey; it is affecting Iraq. Radical Islamists are flowing in on the Sunni side and Shia side. There are al-Qaida elements that are filling in the vacuum because the war has gone on so long. Now we have Hezbollah, a radical Islamic Shia group. This is turning into a civil war within Syria and a regional conflict. To the President: Your decision today to get involved is welcome news. But as Senator McCain said, Mr. President, the goal is to end the war. The only way this war is going to end quickly and on our terms is to neutralize the air assets Asad enjoys. On the air power advantage he has over the rebels, we can crater the runways. There are four air bases he uses. We can stop the planes from flying. We can shoot planes down without having one boot on the ground. That is not necessary. As to Senator McCain's point, the longer this war goes on, the more damage to our allies, and the more likely the chemical weapons can be used not just against Syrians but against us and others. My biggest fear about the war in Syria is the chemical weapons falling in the hands of radical Islamists. They are closer today than they have ever been in achieving that goal. Mr. President, you made the right call today. We need to follow up to end this war with neutralizing Asad's air power and having a no-fly zone so the rebels can reorganize. When we supply arms to the rebels, we will look long and hard at who to give the arms to. The good news is we don't need to give them a bunch of anti-aircraft capability if we crater the runways through the international community using our assets. If we neutralize the air power by blowing up the runways, you don't have to provide the rebels with a bunch of anti- aircraft capability. If we will provide a no-fly zone using PATRIOT missile batteries, you can protect the people without interjecting massive weapons into the conflict. Senator McCain has been right about this for a couple of years. This is a big day. I will conclude with this. Asad is the reason the Russians are providing him more weapons. The reason is Hezbollah is in Syria. The reason the Iranians are so bold is he is clearly winning. It is not in our national interests for him to win because the Israelis cannot allow the technology being sold to Asad by the Russians being present, because it will hurt their national security. I hope with this intervention today to get involved, after chemical weapons have been used, the tide of the battle will turn. If it doesn't turn, it will have catastrophic results for national security and the region as a whole. The President chose wisely today to get involved. We support him. The goal is not to help the rebels, the goal is to end the war before chemical weapons can be used against us, we lose the King of Jordan, and the entire Middle East goes up in flames.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. I would recommend the President educate the American people about what is going on in the Middle East, because it is scary. It is really scary. The Iranians are marching toward a nuclear weapon. Israel is becoming more surrounded by radical Islamic nations, not less. The King of Jordan is teetering. If we lose him, God knows what is going to happen in the Middle East. I would suggest that the President take it one step further. Explain to the American people what happens to us if these chemical weapons Asad has used against his own people fall into the hands of radical Islamists who want to do more than just take care of Syria. My big fear is weapons of mass destruction are going to fall into the hands of radical Islamists either in Iran or Syria if we don't act quickly. The only reason thousands of Americans have been killed in the war on terror--and not millions--is they can't get the weapons to kill millions of us. If they could, they would. I would argue very strongly it is in our national security interests to make sure the war in Syria ends and Asad is displaced. Senator McCain is right, he is winning. He was supposed to be gone last year. He is never going to be displaced until the tide of battle changes. The way we change the tide of battle is neutralize his air power. We can do that without mobilizing every Reservist, including me. It can be done, it should be done, and it is in our interests to do it. One last thought. If we do not address the chemical weapons compromise in Syria and end this war before these chemical weapons flow out of Syria, not only will Israel be in the crosshairs of radical Islamists with a weapons-of-mass-destruction capability, it is only a matter of time before they come here. The next bomb that goes off in a place like Boston could have more than nails and glass in it. The people who want these weapons in Syria, trying to develop nuclear capability in Iran, if we don't think they are coming after us, we are naive. I know we are war weary, but I hope we are not too weary to protect our children, grandchildren, and ourselves from a threat that is real. I wish it would go away, but we don't make these things go away by wishing, we confront them. The sooner we confront it, the better off we will be.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the resolution I submit today with my colleague from Florida is straight forward. Credible and competitive parliamentary elections in Cambodia next month will be the measure or U.S. foreign assistance provided to the central government of that country in the future. According to the United States Agency for International Development, from 1993 to 2011 the United States provided Cambodia with over $1.2 billion in economic and military assistance. The President's fiscal year 2014 budget request to Congress includes a total of $73.5 million in aid for Cambodia. America's investment in that Southeast Asian country has been anything but insignificant. Unfortunately, we are not getting a return on this investment when it comes to the advancement of the rule of law, democracy, and human rights. A chorus of concern with the upcoming elections has been expressed by the United Nations, Cambodian civil society, and opposition political party leaders, including Sam Rainsy who is prohibited from participating in the polls by the actions of courts controlled by the ruling Cambodian People's Party, CPP. Given recent comments by CPP Prime Minister Hun Sen that he intends to remain in power until 2026, one wonders whether the CPP has already decided the outcome of the elections. Less than credible and competitive polls subverts the will of the Cambodian people and perpetuates a level of corruption that ranks that country below Yemen in Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index, 2012. Equally troubling, Hun Sen's close ties with Beijing may further draw Cambodia into the People's Republic of China's sphere of influence--to the determinant of security and stability in the region. I encourage the State Department to pay close attention to events in Cambodia and embrace the actions called for by this resolution should illegitimate elections be held next month. For many Asia-watchers, the response of the administration to these elections will help define the proposed United States pivot toward Asia.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join in recognizing LTC Peter Ford of South Carolina for his extraordinary service to the Nation while serving in the United States Army Reserves and National Guard for the past 32 years. Lieutenant Colonel Ford started his military career in 1981 as an enlisted soldier--an infantryman--in the Virginia National Guard. After graduating from Gustavus Adolphus College, where he was the only ROTC cadet, Lieutenant Colonel Ford was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Army Ordinance Corps. After attending the Officer Basic Course, Lieutenant Colonel Ford, in his civilian capacity, was sworn in as a special agent with the State Department Diplomatic Security Service. While serving as the Regional Security Officer, RSO, at the embassy in Switzerland, Lieutenant Colonel Ford was assigned as a military intelligence officer at the Military Intelligence Group at the 7th Army Reserve Command in Germany. In 1997, he mobilized to support the war in Bosnia. Following his return to the United States, he joined the Office, Chief of the Army Reserves, as a reserve congressional liaison officer and also served as a reservist with the 157th Individual Mobilization Augmentee Detachment. In 2003, Lieutenant Colonel Ford was assigned as a congressional detailee to the Committee on Homeland Security and was named executive officer of the 157th. After serving as RSO in Armenia, he was detailed to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. In the fall of 2007, at the beginning of the surge during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Lieutenant Colonel Ford volunteered to serve as an Army reservist in Iraq. He was attached to the American Embassy in Baghdad and, as the director of the Office of Hostage Affairs, was responsible for U.S. kidnapping cases throughout the country. Following the completion of his military tour, Lieutenant Colonel Ford continued his service in Iraq. For an additional year, he worked as a DSS agent with the State Department in the same position. Returning to the United States, Lieutenant Colonel Ford obtained a masters degree from the National Defense Intelligence College and joined Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Affairs as a drilling Reservist. He was subsequently assigned to the Diplomatic Security's Overseas Security Advisory Council, OSAC. In October 2011, Lieutenant Colonel Ford took command of the 157th Individual Mobilization Augmentee Detachment. During his military and civilian careers, Lieutenant Ford has worked in over 110 countries. On behalf of a grateful nation, I join my colleagues today in saying thank you to LTC Peter Ford for his extraordinary dedication to duty and service to the country throughout his distinguished career in the United States Army.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. At this time, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend from Texas, a strong supporter of the United States-Israel relationship, Senator Cornyn.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time remains?