Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. This is an editorial about the nomination of Senator Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. The Washington Post said: Mr. Hagel's stated positions of critical issues ranging from defense spending to Iran fall well to the left of those proposed by Mr. Obama during his first term and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him. The last line is: Mr. Hagel is an honorable man who served the country with distinction as a soldier in Vietnam and who was respected by his fellow Senators, but Mr. Obama can make a better choice for defense secretary. That sort of sums up where I am: a fine man. If it were about friendship, there wouldn't be a problem. This is about the times in which we live. And I want to echo the statements of the Washington Post about him being out of the mainstream. We have had two hearings, and we will have a couple of votes in the next week or so. I would say to my colleagues regarding the cloture vote today, they have every right to say now is not the time to end the debate about Senator Hagel. He was reported out of the committee at 5 o'clock Tuesday. There are some legitimate questions and information we haven't gathered, and we should be able to have an opportunity to look at that, and people not already committed should have a chance to review this information. So the idea of waiting until after the break makes eminent sense. I think we will be better informed regarding our decision. Debate should continue for at least that period of time. Senator Kerry was able to get out of committee and to be voted on the same day because all of us felt comfortable with John Kerry, even though we may have disagreed with his politics. I believe John Kerry is a good man. We are on opposite sides of the issues sometimes when it comes to Iraq and initially Syria, but I have always thought he was in the mainstream of the debate. So he got 97 votes because we felt comfortable with him. You can tell people on our side, and some others, quite frankly, in the Democratic Party have expressed some discomfort. I would argue that after the hearing there is more discomfort than there was before the hearing. Senator Inhofe and Senator Levin, we had a very good hearing, but to me it was unnerving, some of the things that came out of that hearing. The performance created more questions and doubts than it created confidence. That is the question the Washington Post posed. It is one thing to be in the left lane, the right lane, or the center lane, but I would say Senator Hagel's statements and votes put him in a league of his own. And that is why I will vote no. When it comes to Israel and his statement that ``The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. I'm not an Israeli Senator, I'm a United States Senator,'' Senator Hagel, to his credit, said that was inappropriate and he apologized. But think for a minute how many of my colleagues would have said that. I asked him to name one Senator who has been intimidated, and he couldn't name one. I asked him to name one policy we have enacted because of the Jewish Israeli lobby, and he couldn't name a policy. Now we find out today--and I don't know if this has been verified, but it is posted--that an aide of his reported that during a speech Senator Hagel gave several years ago he said the U.S. Department of State was an extension of the Israeli Government. Now this is showing a chip on one shoulder about Israel--an unhealthy statement, to say the least, and I think patently false. But it is unnerving to a guy like me, and I can only imagine what kind of signal a statement such as that sends in these dangerous times. On Iran he was one of two Senators to vote against renewing unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran and Libya in 2001. He was one of twelve Senators who did not sign a letter asking the European Union to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization. He refused to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization in 2007----

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an opinion piece by the editorial board for the Washington Post dated December 18, 2012.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, I thank Senator McCain. My first view is it is better not to go over the cliff than to go over the cliff. But it is also important, as my colleague just said, to understand what we have accomplished. Let's assume for a moment--let's hope this is a good assumption--that we are reaching an agreement by the end of the day that raises tax rates on people who make over $400,000. I don't think that is a good idea because I think it hurts job creation. The better way to get revenue is to eliminate deductions and exemptions for businesses and wealthy individuals and take that money back into the treasury, lower tax rates to create jobs and pay down some debt. That is what Bowles- Simpson did. Not one bipartisan group, I say to the Senator, that has tried to solve our debt problem and our spending problem and our revenue problem has suggested raising tax rates. Bowles-Simpson, a bipartisan group, actually lowered tax rates, and they did that by eliminating deductions and exemptions, and they put a lot of money on the debt. They had a 25- percent corporate rate, and the top personal rate was 30 percent. They took this $1.2 trillion we give out every year in exemptions and deductions to the favored few and brought it back into the treasury. They paid down the debt and they lowered tax rates to help create jobs. This President's approach is the opposite of Simpson-Bowles and the Gang of 6. We had six Senators, three Democrats and three Republicans. How did they try to solve our long-term problems? They reformed the Tax Code by eliminating virtually all deductions. They took that money back into the treasury, they paid down debt, and they lowered tax rates, just as Simpson-Bowles. Now, this President has taken another path. He wants to raise tax rates to generate revenue. My concern is the higher the tax burdens in America, the less likely to create a job in America. There are better ways to generate revenues. But he has gotten his way and he is going to win. Hats off to the President for having the courage of your convictions. You said during the campaign you were going to raise tax rates on everybody making above $250,000. Well, you probably are not going to get that, but you are going to be somewhere around $400,000. The money to be generated, you say you want it to go on the deficit. Well, that is good. Yesterday, the proposal by our Democratic colleagues was to take that increased revenue from raising tax rates and spend $600 billion on the government. That is why they don't have a deal. I am willing to swallow my pride and vote for a tax rate increase-- even though I don't think it is good policy--just to save the country from going into the abyss and destroying the military. I am willing to do that, and I will take some heat. But that is the way democracies are. You win some, you lose some. What I am not going to do is raise tax rates on anybody and take that additional money to grow the government when we all know we need to get out of debt. That is what was going to happen yesterday. By 2037, the amount of debt we have in the Nation will be twice the size of our economy. Every child born in America owes $51,000 of debt on the day of their birth. When we look at Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, the three big spending programs, called entitlements, in about 25 years the cost of those programs is going to consume all the revenue coming into the government, and there will be no money for the Defense Department. So when the President said today that round 2 will be the debt ceiling, he is right. He won round 1. But we have done nothing, as Senator McCain indicated, to lower the deficit in any real way. If we took every penny of the money we are generating from raising tax rates for people above $400,000, that is 6 percent of the national deficit. That doesn't even begin to solve the problem. So this is a hollow victory--a victory of revenue with no change in the Nation's march toward becoming like Greece, no real reduction in our deficit or our debt. The good news is that we are one big deal away from dominating the 21st century because America's problems are less than most other places. The bad news is that deal is elusive. It requires Presidential leadership, and I haven't seen much of it. If we stay on the course we are on today, we are going to lose the American dream because our grandchildren and your children cannot pay off the debt we are about to pass on to them. So in about 2 months round 2 begins, and we will be asked to raise the debt ceiling. Trust me, I don't want to default on our obligations. But in August of 2011, we borrowed $2.1 trillion because we ran out of money, and 42 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed money. If we don't keep borrowing, we have to cut the government by 42 percent. Nobody suggests that is a good idea overnight. But here is what I will not do. I will not continue borrowing money unless we address in the process what got us into debt to begin with. So when we have to raise the debt ceiling again, I want to make a simple request: Let's come up with a plan bipartisan in nature to save Social Security and Medicare from bankruptcy because they are going to run out of money and become insolvent in the next 20 years. Let's also create a spending reduction plan that will allow us not to become like Greece. If you want to raise more revenue by capping deductions, count me in because we will need more revenue. But in 17 months, ladies and gentlemen, we spent $2.1 trillion. We are burning through money like crazy. It took us 200 years to borrow the first $2 trillion. We spent $2.1 trillion of borrowed money in 17 months. That has to stop. So to President Obama: Congratulations on your tax rate increase. You fought hard and you won. I hope I have the courage of my convictions not to raise the debt ceiling until you and others will work with me to find a plan to begin to get us out of debt. You mentioned Medicare today in your speech, and I am glad you did. In 2024, it completely becomes insolvent. Think of how many people in this country need Medicare and will need it 20 years from now. If we don't do something, it is going to run out of money. The age of eligibility for Medicare recipients is 65. It hasn't changed one day since 1965 when it first started. We are all living longer. I propose we adjust the retirement age to 67 over a 10-year or 20-year period. That will save the program in many ways. People at my income level shouldn't get any money from the government to help buy prescription drugs. I should pay the full cost because I can afford to. That is called means testing. This CPI thing you hear a lot about, that is how you evaluate benefits. That needs to be reevaluated based on real inflation. We are overestimating the cost and adding burdens to these programs. That is kind of technical stuff, but here is what I am telling you. I am not going to vote to raise the debt ceiling until we do something to save Social Security and Medicare from bankruptcy, and I am not going to borrow a bunch more money that our grandkids are going to have to pay off without a plan to get out of debt. If that is too much to ask, so be it. But it is not too much to ask of you at home because if you spend a lot more money than you make, you go to jail. We call it good governance. That has to stop. So round 2 is coming, and we are going to have one hell of a contest about the direction and the vision of this country. The President we need 2 months from now is going to be the one who will come down here and talk with us and work with us and not have a press conference. Because, Mr. President, I want to make you a historic President. I want, on your 4-year watch, for us to change the course of the country. I want to save Medicare and Social Security from insolvency, and I will give you full credit as the Presidential leader if you will help us as a nation find a way to save these programs from bankruptcy. I want to turn around the spending problem we have and prevent us from becoming Greece. And if you will lead I will follow. Yes, I will raise more revenue in a responsible way. But without you, it is going to be hard for us to get there. So the next time we meet, it is going to be a round of debt ceiling, and the image I want is not a bunch of people behind the President who are clapping for him, but Members of Congress--Republicans and Democrats--behind the President, clapping for the President because he signed a bill that will save all of us from a certain fate. And our fate is being sealed as I talk unless we make changes. We cannot survive on the course we are taking today. The good news is, with some bipartisanship and Presidential leadership, we still have time to turn around this country and actually dominate the 21st century. It is going to take some pain and it is going to take some sacrifice. One final story. When I was 21 my mom died. When I was 22 my dad died, 15 months later. My family owned a liquor store, a restaurant, and a pool room. Everything I know about politics I learned in the pool room. My sister was 13. My uncle took over the businesses. He left the textile industry to run the businesses. We moved in with my aunt and uncle. They never made over $25,000 or $30,000 their entire life. And if it weren't for Social Security survivor's benefits for my sister, we would have had a hard time making it. She went to college on a Pell grant. I am 57. I am not married. I don't have any kids. I am part of the problem. That is what is happening all over America. But when I was 22, we needed every penny we could get in Social Security benefits. Today, I could easily give up $500 when I retire and not feel it at all, and I could pay more for Medicare--and I would, and I am going to ask people in my situation to do that. We just have to have the courage to ask. I think most Americans would say yes. So Medicare and Social Security are not programs to me. I know what they do for real people, and if we do nothing, in 2032--which seems forever but it is not--Social Security becomes insolvent, and we have to cut benefits 25 percent for everybody, whether they can afford it or not or raise taxes by 38 percent, whether businesses can afford it or not. And the way you solve that is to reform the programs like Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill. Mr. President, I am willing to play, along with my other Republican colleagues, the role of Tip O'Neill. You just need to play the role of Ronald Reagan. So the next time we talk about fiscal problems in America, I want a news conference where the President is center stage, not surrounded by political activists but surrounded by Republicans and Democrats who can celebrate accomplishing something that we should all be proud of. They tell me this is the least productive Congress in the history of the Nation. If it is not, I would hate to be in the one that was. We haven't done a whole lot up here. I know Senator McCain has been here a few years now. I ask the Senator, what is his opinion of where we are going as a nation and how we get along with each other?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to respond and to inform my colleagues about what would happen if this amendment were adopted by the body. No. 1, the foreign aid budget is less than 1 percent of the total Federal budget. It is about $52 to $53 billion. It has been reduced. A lot of things Senator Paul said about money being wasted were very much true in the past. President Bush looked at foreign assistance in a different way to come up with the Millennium Challenge Corporation. We are now trying to make sure our dollars go to make us safer, to help people who are truly in need, and to make sure we have a presence in the world for which I think there would be no substitute. It cuts 67 percent of the foreign aid budget in three titles: USAID--those of you who have been to Afghanistan and other places, USAID projects are designed to make sure that once the military is withdrawn from that area, that we can hold. Those of you who are tired of war, like all of us, I just want to go back to ``Charlie Wilson's War.'' The last scene in the movie was Mr. Wilson wanted $1 million to build some schoolhouses in Afghanistan, and the reply was: Man, I have got broken schools in my State and my district. And that is true in South Carolina, that is true in Kentucky, and it is true in West Virginia. But we had no soldiers in Afghanistan and no aid to Afghanistan during the Taliban reign. That model did not work. If you think you can withdraw from the world and if you think America has no leadership role, then this is a good amendment. If you think the best thing America can do is invest in aid programs that help us as a Nation to be safer, then I would vote no for this amendment. President Bush--one of his great legacies is that he invested in AIDS and malaria programs in Africa that saved a whole generation of African children. The Chinese are all over Africa trying to buy up the continent, and radical Islam is moving forward. What a time for America to tell the African people: No longer will we help you--because if this amendment is passed, it will devastate the account we have in Africa. We have almost no troops. The only thing we have to combat radical Islam and Chinese influence is our aid programs that will create a lot of jobs here in America. Jordan--there are 250,000 Syrian refugees flooding into Jordan. The refugee account is being overwhelmed. If you care at all about the King of Jordan and stability in Jordan, for God's sake, vote against this amendment because it will devastate the money we set aside to deal with the refugee problem from the war in Syria. As to Israel, the third title that is affected is the counternarcotics military assistance program, foreign military financing. We have contacted the Department of State and the Department of Defense. They told us: If you cut this account by 67 percent, it is going to put pressure on defense accounts. They are already under the threat of sequestration. It will affect the ability of our Nation to help Israel with the F-35 aircraft, armored vehicles, and protective systems for other vehicles. If you think, as I do, that the world is a very dangerous place and it is better for America to lead than to come home and play like the world is not a dangerous place, vote against this amendment. It is $9 billion. It is 67 percent of the three accounts I have just described. Ask yourself, as a Member of the Senate, is now the time to tell the King of Jordan and the people of Jordan: We cannot help you with refugees overflowing into your country. Because if the King goes, what happens next? Is now the time to send to the people of Israel a signal that we are going to reduce military assistance to their struggling nation, surrounded by a lot of adversaries? Is now the time to tell the people of Africa: America will be leaving; enjoy the Chinese presence. Every time America tries to play the game that what happens in other places doesn't affect us, we pay a heavy price. This meant 9/11 was the result of a place called Afghanistan falling into the hands of the most vicious people on the planet, and we sat on the sidelines. It wasn't long before the Taliban invited bin Laden in as their honored guest, and the rest is history. There are at least six countries I can name in Africa today that, if we abandon Africa, are going to become the next places that attack us. I can tell you right now that if we abandon the King of Jordan, he will fall. You will wake up one day, and you will say, was that $9 billion worth all of what I have just described? I wish we could come home. I wish we never had to send a dollar outside the State of South Carolina. But I promise you this: If we stop leading this world and we stop having a presence where others show up, we will pay a heavy price. This amendment guts to their core three essential accounts that are very important to our national security and to who we are as Americans.

Mr. GRAHAM. Don't create one disaster in trying to solve another. Please vote no.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Good decision, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAHAM. Sure.

Mr. GRAHAM. It makes no sense, I say to the Senator. He would be entitled to a habeas hearing if he were caught in the United States, but he would be held under the law of war because the allegation is not that he was committing a crime but that he was collaborating with the enemy. So, yes, we could have a scenario, according to the view of the Senator from Kentucky, that we could kill somebody--an American citizen overseas helping the enemy kill our troops--but if they joined with al- Qaida here at home, all of a sudden we have to give them a lawyer and read them their rights and we can't hold them under the law of war detention to find out what they know about an impending attack. That makes absolutely no sense. The Supreme Court has rejected that kind of thinking. I hope that day never comes, but I can tell my colleagues this: I don't know when the war is over, he is right about that, but I know this: As long as I am in the Senate, we are going to fight it and we are going to fight it as a war, not a crime.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the authors and managers of the bill in the House with coming up with a very good bill for our military which will have pay raises and trying to increase our defenses. I don't mind saying that I think we are at war. I know the Presiding Officer believes that. How long does the war last? I don't know. I cannot tell anyone. Am I supposed to know that? Can we not fight it unless we know the date it ends? America, is it part of the battlefield? Tell me. Where do you think they want to hit us the most? What do you think al-Qaida would like to do more than anything else? They would like to come here and destroy the building I am speaking in. The only reason they cannot get here yet is because we are fighting them over there. We are gathering good intelligence. We are taking the war home to them. Our intelligence agencies, our FBI, our military, our CIA are all over the world tracking these crazy people so they cannot get here. So to suggest that I cannot tell when the war ends, therefore we have to turn it into a crime, is dangerous and absurd. Did they know when Germany, Berlin, or Tokyo was going to fall? What happened to the German saboteurs who landed in Long Island during World War II? They were captured by the FBI and turned over to the military. What happened to the American citizens who were helping the German saboteurs? They were held as enemy combatants. To my good friend from Kentucky, I don't doubt his passion or sincerity; I doubt his judgment on these issues. The Supreme Court has spoken three different times. Less than 6 or 7 years ago an American citizen was caught helping the Taliban in Afghanistan and they said we could hold one of our own as an enemy combatant until the hostilities cease, and that is a hard time to figure out. Let's get this right. If an American citizen helping the Taliban in Afghanistan kills our soldiers, can be captured and held as an enemy combatant according to the Supreme Court, what kind of world would we live in if the al-Qaida collaborator American citizen attacked us here, trying to kill us in our own homeland, to say: That doesn't count. The American citizen is no longer at war because we are in America; we have to read them their rights and give them a lawyer and we can't hold them for military intelligence-gathering purposes. My good friend doesn't understand that in fighting a war, the goal is to win the war; it is to defeat the enemy. In fighting a crime, the goal is designed to hold somebody accountable for an illegal wrong. I have been a military lawyer for 30 years. He may not understand the law of war, but I do and the Supreme Court does. The Supreme Court has said in World War II and in this war, if an American citizen collaborates with the enemy, they will be given due process under the law of war. A Federal judge will hear the claim: I am wrongly held. I am not part of al-Qaida or the Taliban. That is the only time one could be held as an enemy combatant. In helping al-Qaida or the Taliban, one has to be involved in a plot or an act. If a Federal judge agrees with the government that, yes, in fact, there is evidence to suggest an American citizen is helping the Taliban or al-Qaida, I think most Americans would say it is reasonable to hold that person to find out what they know about this attack and future attacks. Can my colleagues imagine what would happen in this country if three people were running up the Capitol steps to blow up the Capitol and one of them survived who was an American citizen and we couldn't hold them and question them by asking: Where did you train? Is there any other attack planned? What do you know? Whom did you work with? That we would have to say, within hours or a day or two, here is your lawyer and you have a right to remain silent? Can we imagine what would have happened in World War II if the American citizens who helped the Nazis--if we turned that into a common crime. The difference between me and the Senator from Kentucky is that I believe with all my heart and soul that the al-Qaida, Taliban groups are at war with us and are trying to come to our homeland. I know they are trying to find American citizens who would help them, and they will. There has never been a war in America where somebody within the American citizen community did not collaborate with the enemy. That is happening today. When that day comes and we capture that person, I want as an option the ability to hold them as an enemy combatant, as we did in other wars. They will get their day in court, but they will not be read their rights or given a lawyer on the spot because that would stop intelligence gathering. To the managers of this bill, to the men and women of the House who sent it over here, thank God they chose a balance between due process and common sense. All I will say is that the way we found bin Laden was not through torture. I am offended by that, as are Senator McCain and Senator Levin. The way we tracked down bin Laden is we had people held at Gitmo for years under the law of war. We don't try them or let them go. When we capture somebody on the battlefield, we don't hold a trial; we hold the prisoner to try to gather intelligence and keep them off the battlefield. Through that process, over years, the Bush administration and the Obama administration put together the puzzle about bin Laden. It wasn't because of waterboarding; it was because this country had available to it the law of war detention that allows us to hold people and get to know them over time and make sure they could not go back to the fight and good questioning and good interrogation techniques led to finding bin Laden. What the Senator from Kentucky is saying is it would not be available to us as a nation if an American citizen were involved in attacking us on the homeland. What an absurd result, that if an American citizen joined al-Qaida to kill everybody in this room, for some unknown reason, we would turn that into a crime rather than an act of war. If a person collaborates with al-Qaida or the Taliban, two things can happen to them: They can get killed or they can get captured. Most likely they will get a trial one day and nobody is restricting their trial rights. What Senator Levin said is true. There is nothing in here restricting the right of trial. What is in here is giving us the option to hold someone as an enemy combatant so we don't have to Mirandize them and turn an act of war into a crime. I am afraid it will not be long before this is tested in reality. The enemy is afoot. They are trying to penetrate our homeland. They are seeking aid and comfort from Americans within our own country who are going to side with the enemy, unfortunately. When that day comes, I wish to make sure we have the ability in this war, as in every other war, to hold them and to gather intelligence--not to torture them but to make sure we are safe as a nation. Due process, yes. Under the law of war, it must be so. If we turn this war into a crime, we are going to regret it. If my colleagues don't believe we are at war, then I cannot disagree more. I cannot tell my colleagues when the war ends, but I will tell them how it ends. This is how it is going to end: We are going to win and they are going to lose because we can't afford to lose. Between now and when that day comes, we are going to take the fight to them. If we find an American citizen helping the enemy overseas-- this President ordered the killing by drone of al-Awlaki, an American citizen overseas--I believe it was Yemen--and the President said: I have ample evidence he is now assisting al-Qaida overseas to attack American targets and I am going to take him out. Well done, Mr. President. Well done, Mr. President. If most of us agree we can kill an American citizen helping al-Qaida kill us overseas, we can't capture an American citizen helping al-Qaida here at home and hold him for questioning under the law of war, what an absurd result. I not only am going to vote for this bill, I am going to celebrate the fact we have done nothing to stop the right to trial. As Senator Levin said, there is not one thing in this bill that restricts a person's right to a trial. What we do have in this bill is the recognition we are at war and we retain as an option that has not been used--there is no American citizen in detention--but there may be a need for that one day and we retain that right under this bill.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I wanted to be recognized for 10 minutes to talk about the decision by Senator DeMint to leave the Senate next year. But I wish to say to my friend from North Dakota, all of us have in our prayers the loss of our soldiers there and all of the soldiers who have been in a tough, long, hard war. I met with Jim DeMint this morning. To say I was stunned is an understatement. Jim indicated to me that he will be retiring from the Senate next year and taking over the presidency of the Heritage Foundation, one of the great conservative think tanks here in Washington. My reaction for the people of South Carolina is: You have lost a great, strong conservative voice, someone who has championed the conservative cause and represented our State with distinction, sincerity, and a great deal of passion. On a personal level, I have lost my colleague and friend. Jim and I have known each other for almost 20 years now. I think we have done a pretty darn good job for South Carolina, at times playing the good cop, the bad cop, but always trying to work together. What differences we have had have been sincere. That is the word I would use about Senator DeMint. He sincerely believes in his causes. He is a conservative voice that people in our party look to for leadership and guidance. What he has done over the last 4 to 6 years to build a conservative movement to get people involved in politics, such as Marco Rubio, whom Jim helped early on in his primary, I think is going to be a great legacy. From a State point of view, we have lost one of our great champions. Jim and Debbie have raised four wonderful children. They have great grandkids. I know Jim is looking forward to staying involved and pushing the conservative outside the body. He was an effective voice in the Senate, whether you agreed with Jim or not. He really did strongly and passionately advocate for his positions and did it very effectively. Jim made the Republican Party, quite frankly, look inward and do some self-evaluation. Conservatism is an asset, not a liability, as we try to govern this country in the 21st century. I look forward to staying in touch with Jim and to working with him at the Heritage Foundation to see what we can do to improve the fate of our country so we will not become Greece. No one is more worried about this Nation's unsustainable debt situation than Senator DeMint. I have seen him evolve over time as someone who could not sit quietly anymore, who had to take up the cause. In the 2010 election cycle, he was one of the strongest voices we had that we had lost our way in Washington. I know Jim to be a very kind, sincere man. He is an individual who is a joy to be around. But when it comes to what is going on in America, I think Jim understands that if we don't make some changes and make them quickly, we are going to lose our way of life. That is what has driven him above all else. He is trying to keep this country the land of the free and the home of the brave, where people's hard work is rewarded--not punished--where we have a chance to come from nowhere to be anything, including President of the United States. Jim is right to say our debt is unsustainable, that Washington does too much, and there is a better way. I will look forward to working with Jim in the private sector. From a personal point of view, we have had a great ride together. It has been fun, it has been challenging, and I think we put South Carolina on the map in different ways at different times. To people back in South Carolina, I hope if they get to see Jim anytime soon, say thank you. Because whether they agree with Senator DeMint, he was doing what he thought was best for South Carolina and the United States. At the end of the day, that is as good as it gets. Because if someone is doing what they truly believe in and not worried about being the most popular or people getting mad at them, then one can do a good job in Washington. To the people back in South Carolina, everything Jim has tried to do has been motivated by changing the country, making South Carolina the best we could be at home. So if you get a chance, run into Jim anytime soon or in the coming days, please say thank you because he did his job as he saw fit. He did what he thought was best, and he didn't worry about being the most popular or taking on people when he thought he was right. I can tell you this. When it comes to me, he has always been a friend, somebody I could count on personally. We enjoyed our time together. I was stunned this morning. Jim has an unlimited bright future in the private sector. I will say more next year when his time comes to an end. But on behalf of all of us in South Carolina, I wish to say to Jim and Debbie, thank you very much for taking time away from your family, fighting the good fight, and pressing issues you passionately believe in. I wish to thank Jim and Debbie both for being my friends. You all both mean a great deal to me, and I am confident the best is yet to come for both of you. On behalf of the people of South Carolina, great job, well done. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to inform the body that I think Senator Levin's understanding and reasoning is incredibly sound. We have actually been talking about this for a couple of days. And in light of the Hamdi decision and just plain old common sense, I will support the Feinstein amendment. I will be the first to say that if we are attacked by the Iranians tomorrow or some other group, we have an authorization to use force. Senator Levin and I will be the first to say in that authorization that it will provide that if an American citizen joins the Iranians in a war against America, they can be detained under the law of war. Now, you can vote however you like. I know how I will vote. But this has already gone up to the Supreme Court. And if I can build on what Senator Levin said as to the logic of the Court and I think the logic of our position, let's get us back to the United States. I don't think anybody in their right mind would say the United States is not part of the battlefield in the war on terror. I would suggest that of all the places the enemy wants to hit us, they want to hit us here at home the most. Their goal is to kill us here. They will kill us in Libya, they will kill us in Afghanistan, they will attack our consulates, they will kill our soldiers, they will blow up our embassies, they will hit us all over the world, but don't be misled--they want to hit us here. Remember 9/11? I do. I am sure you all do. You know what. The only reason we haven't had another 9/11 is we have been fighting these bastards over there, where we have been getting good intelligence. It took a couple of years before any of the people held at Guantanamo Bay told us what was going on, but we found out about bin Laden--and not because we tortured people but because we put the intelligence puzzle together over time by holding people under the law of war and gathering good intelligence. That is how we got bin Laden. So bin Laden is dead, but the war is not over. I wish it were. Now, the homeland. If there is a planned attack on a Navy vessel or a military installation, I think the point Senator Levin was making is that we have already authorized the use of force to protect the country against the Taliban and al-Qaida; is that right?

Mr. GRAHAM. I will read another quote from Hamdi. There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. Hamdi's detention could last for the rest of his life because the law of war detention can last for the duration of the relevant conflict. Here is what we are trying to do. We are trying to create a system consistent with the Hamdi decision, and quite frankly, ladies and gentlemen, what I am trying to avoid is the criminal paradigm because I know the difference between criminal law and law of war. Under the law of war, you can detain somebody for interrogation to find out what the enemy is up to if you believe that person to be part of the enemy. And let me tell my friends, I do not want to take our criminal justice system and bastardize it. During the Bush years when we had the military commission rollout, they had a provision that in a military commission trial, the military jury could be given classified information but not share it with the defendant. I said: No. If a trial means anything, it means the right to confront those witnesses against you. I jealously guard that. The worst al-Qaida member in the world, when they go on trial in military commissions, will have a lawyer, a right to appeal to our Supreme Court, and will be able to confront every witness against them. An American citizen who joins al-Qaida or the Taliban will be tried in Federal court because we took military commissions off the table. That is the trial. Here is the main point: If you are allowing our military to use force to protect themselves, as Hamdi says, it naturally follows that with the use of force comes the lawful detention. And that is why I will be voting for Feinstein. I think that is where most Americans are. If there is any confusion, we can talk about this in conference. But, Senator Levin, I want to thank you for--since 2006--working with me and against me. You know, our dispute about what would be an active substitute for habeas went to the Supreme Court, and you won 5 to 4. Damn those Justices, but that is the way it goes. And you know what. There were some Republicans and Democrats who disagreed with me and you both. But I respect an independent judiciary, and I know Justice Roberts kind of got some people mad at him because of the ObamaCare decision, but that is the way it goes. That is the way these old judges are. I just really appreciate an independent judiciary. I just want to say that after that decision in 2006 or 2007, how much of a pleasure it has been to work with you and others to try to find a way to achieve a balance in a war that is hard to understand. There is no capital to conquer, no airplanes to shoot down in terms of their jet fighters, there is no navy to sink, but they use boats to attack us and they use private planes to kill us. At the end of the day, we are at war. The outcome does matter, and I want to win this war. I know everybody in this body wants to win this war. But I want to live within our values. So I will work with Senator Levin and Senator McCain and say that even though we are fighting the worst people on the planet, count me out when it comes to waterboarding. I remember when people on my side would say--and I understand them very well--why do you care about what we do to these people? They will cut our heads off. Because we are Americans. It is not necessary to go down that road to win the war. And quite frankly, ladies and gentlemen, the opposite is true. You can't win this war if you don't realize you are in a war. We are not fighting common crime, we are fighting a vicious enemy. And we can do it within our values. We can do it within due process consistent with the law of war and, when we get in that criminal arena, consistent with criminal law. As much as I disagree with this President, I will not deny him the ability that every Commander in Chief has had for decades as an option, if he chooses to use it. And if you want to go down the criminal road, we can, but we need the option. As much as I dislike President Obama, I am not going to use as a reason to change the law of war that Barack Obama may put some people in jail who disagree with him, and I am not going to buy into some of the rhetoric coming out of our side that a habeas corpus independent judiciary view means nothing if Obama appointed the judge. We are better than that. I stand ready to vote for Feinstein, I stand ready to work with my colleagues to continue to find a way to fight and win a war within our values, the outcome of which will matter not only to us but those who follow. God bless every person on the front line who is risking their life at home and abroad. And here is what you have as a promise between Senator Levin and myself and many others: We are going to give you the tools to keep us safe and to keep your comrades safe. We are not going to do things in this war that made no sense in other wars. You need our help, you need our prayers, and you need the tools to fight and win this war, and we will give you those tools. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, long story short, the American people believe that the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, isolated from the American population, that is being well run by our military and monitored by all kinds of organizations, is a satisfactory answer to the problem of terrorism. Simply stated, the American people do not want to close Guantanamo Bay, which is an isolated, military-controlled facility, to bring these crazy bastards who want to kill us all to the United States. Most Americans believe that the people at Guantanamo Bay are not some kind of burglar or bank robber. They are bent on our destruction. I stand with the American people, that we are under siege, we are under attack, and we are at war. Some of my colleagues in this body have forgotten what 9/11 is all about. The people in that prison who attacked us on 9/11 want to destroy our way of life. They do not want to steal your car. They don't want to break into your house. We have a military prison being well run, so I think the American people are telling everybody in this body: Have you lost your minds? We are at war; act like we are at war. I yield.

Mr. GRAHAM. And our military can fire the shots because of the use of force to defend the homeland and to defend themselves here at home. And the Supreme Court says that once you authorize the ability to use force, it just follows, as night follows day, that detention is part of the ability to use force because, ladies and gentlemen, if it is not, you have turned our military into murderers because you are not supposed to shoot somebody and leave them wounded in the water, and you shouldn't watch them swim away. You capture them and interrogate them under the law of war. Isn't that what Hamdi is about and the point they are trying to make?

Mr. GRAHAM. We thought there was 20 minutes on each side. Apparently, it is close enough. Just a few minutes? But I want Senator Ayotte to wrap this up.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity. This is a good debate. It is a fascinating discussion. I guess the way I look at this issue--and we will talk with Senator Levin in a bit--I have been a military lawyer for about 30 years, and the first thing you do in JAG school is have a discussion about the difference between the law of war and criminal law. Every military lawyer is taught from the very beginning of their career that law of war detention is designed to neutralize the enemy and to gather intelligence about the enemy. There is a reason that when we capture somebody in a war we do not give them a trial by jury, and we do not give them a lawyer. We have 3,000 people in American military custody in Afghanistan who were captured on the battlefield, and they are held under the law of war because we do not want to let them go back to killing us. And they are not given a lawyer because we are not trying to solve a crime; we are trying to win a war. Here is the question to my good friend from California: I do not want anyone to believe that under the law of war construct we have created over the last 7 or 8 years that you can be put in jail because you look like a Muslim, that you sound like a Muslim, that you have got a name Mohammad. What happened to Japanese-American citizens is they were put in military custody because we were all afraid and they looked like the enemy. That was not a high point in America. What are we talking about here? We are talking about detaining people under the law of war who are suspected of joining al-Qaida or the Taliban and engaging in a belligerent act against the United States. I want to make the record clear that some of my colleagues on the Republican side have been trying to deny law of war detention to the Obama administration, and they have openly said this: If you allow this to happen, President Obama is going to put you in jail because of political dissent. There are people on my side who are afraid of law of war detention being in Barack Obama's hands because they think,--they hate him so much they think he is going to use a provision to protect us against an al-Qaida attack to put them in jail because they disagree with his agenda. It gets worse. I want you to know this. There has been a statement in our conference that habeas corpus review by an independent judiciary where the intelligence community, the military, would have to prove in court by a preponderance of the evidence that the person in question has, in fact, engaged in hostilities against the United States by helping the Taliban or al-Qaida--that is the requirement of the government--they have to prove that to the judge, that is not really a check on government power because the judge could be an Obama appointee. As much as I disagree with President Obama, as much as I think he has been a divisive President, in many ways has failed to lead, I want to disassociate myself from the concept that you cannot give this Commander in Chief the powers that Commanders in Chief have enjoyed in other wars because we hate him so much. To my friends who get on the Internet and talk radio and stoke this paranoia, we are afraid enough for good reason. This is a dangerous world. We are about to walk off the fiscal cliff. We have people out there trying to undermine our way of life. There is a lot to be afraid of: Al-Qaida coming back to our shores, recruiting American citizens to help their endeavors. I hate to say it, in every war we have ever been in, there have been occasions when Americans joined the enemy. In World War II that happened. You had German saboteurs land on Long Island, aided and abetted by American citizens sympathetic to the Nazis. All of those American citizens in In Re: Quirin were held in military custody and tried by the military because we have long understood that when you join the enemy, that is not a crime but an act of war. We have very bad people who get a right to a jury trial. I will be the first one to say that when you go to court, no matter if you are the worst terrorist in the world, you will get a jury trial, you will get a lawyer, and you will have your due process rights. But the difference I am trying to inform the body of when you are fighting a war is the goal is not to prosecute people, the goal is to win. And how do you win a war? You kill them; you capture them; you interrogate them to find out what they are up to next. So I am here to say to my colleagues that the al-Qaida-Taliban efforts to do harm to our Nation are alive and growing. The narrative that al-Qaida has been decimated is a false narrative. What happened in Libya, unfortunately, is going to happen again. I know my good friend from California, who is the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, knows there are active efforts in our own backyard--and Joe Lieberman can tell you, too--to recruit American citizens to attack us--not to commit a crime, to join the enemy. All I am suggesting is that Barack Obama and every Commander in Chief in the future needs to have the tools available to protect us against an enemy. And the basic question is: Is fighting al-Qaida fighting a crime or fighting a war? I believe with all of my heart and soul that they do not want our property, they do not want our cars, they do not want our bank accounts, they want to destroy us. They hate what we stand for. Just as in World War II, when you decided to help the Nazis, you were held in military custody because you did something other than commit a crime. The goal here is if you capture an American citizen who has sided with the enemy that we preserve the ability of our military intelligence community to find out what they know about future attacks and present attacks. The goal of a criminal prosecution is to find justice under a criminal statute. The goal in time of war is to win. I do not believe in torturing people to get good information, but I do believe in interrogating them for military purposes if they have sided with the enemy. This is a great debate. But the one thing I do not want to associate myself with is as much as I may disagree with this President's agenda, there are people on my side of the aisle who are stirring up their fellow Americans, making them afraid that Barack Obama could use legitimate powers in a time of war to gather intelligence against people who sided with the enemy to come after them because they look different or they may have a different political belief. I want to disassociate myself with those on my side of the aisle who say that habeas corpus, an independent judiciary, is not an adequate check because Barack Obama may have appointed the judge. That undermines our judiciary. That creates paranoia. That creates a fundamental distrust of what I think is something we should be all proud of: America. This war will last probably longer than most of us. It is an ideological struggle. There is no capital to conquer, like Berlin and Japan. There is no air force to shoot down. There is no navy to sink. It is about an ideology that must be contained and fought, an ideology, unfortunately, that will be attractive to some Americans as it was in other wars. Unfortunately, as I speak today, the enemy is trying to come back to our shores and use some American citizens to further their cause. To an American citizen: Do not join al-Qaida or the Taliban. Do not turn on your country. Do not side with their view of humanity. If you do, you have not committed a crime, you have engaged in an act of war against the rest of us and we have a right to win this war. We have a right to hold you under the law of armed conflict as we have held others in the past, to find out why you joined, what you know, and what they are up to next. There is no American citizen in law of war custody. This President has not rounded up one person and put them in jail using the statute that exists today because they disagreed with him. I do not believe he will. All I am asking is that we have options available in this war that have existed in every war America has fought. Because here is my bottom-line belief, that as much as the Nazis represented a threat to humanity, al-Qaida represents an equal threat to humanity. And nobody in World War II would have entertained the idea that if you sided with the Nazis and you helped the saboteurs blow up parts of America, you should be considered anything other than an enemy who has joined the other side. So unlike criminal law, where you are trying to find justice for victims, this is about winning a war and marginalizing the enemy. And when the enemy is able to turn one of our own, the last thing in the world we should do is deny ourselves the ability to interrogate that person in a way to help us win the war and keep us safe. That has been the law forever when it comes to war. That is the law today, that will be the law tomorrow. I look forward to talking to Senator Levin, who has been a 100- percent voice of reason, to talk about authorization to use force and the ability to detain. I will end with this thought: If you deny the ability to gather intelligence and detain, you do not want to put our troops in a position where they have to kill everybody they find. We want to capture the enemy when we can. Because when you capture the enemy, not only do you hurt the enemy, you find out a lot about what they are up to. Here is the question: If an American citizen is engaging in helping al-Qaida and the Taliban in a terrorist activity on our shores, are they the enemy? Yes, they are. We need to know about why they did what they did and what they are going to do next. With that, I will yield.

Mr. GRAHAM. So if our military is authorized to use force, they do not have to call the FBI or the Virginia State Police to shoot. They can shoot against an enemy themselves coming at them in America.

Mr. GRAHAM. I want to build on that just to make sure we understand about a potential attack on a Navy base here at home. No one is suggesting the military could not use force against an al-Qaida attack here at home. The Hamdi case was an American citizen captured in Afghanistan. I hope we are not trying to create a picture that somehow America is a place where our own military cannot fire a shot in defense of their ships or our country. Let's say we have some ships up there in Virginia and we have a boatload of al-Qaida types trying to ram the ship. Does the Senator agree with me that our military can use force to defend us here at home against al-Qaida?

Mr. GRAHAM. Right. Because we are not fighting a crime. We don't have to disarm our military and call the local cops and say: Would you please shoot these people before they get here? No. Our guys are going to shoot you. If you are an American citizen asked to get in a boat and asked to attack a military ship or installation in the United States, we are going to shoot you, and if we wound you, we are going to capture you. And here is what we are going to do to you as an incident of using force. The Supreme Court has said that when you authorize the use of force, it makes no sense to give that authorization if you don't have the power to detain because the worst thing you can do to the American military is to make them kill everybody and capture no one or let the other guys go. So kill-them-all is not good policy, and it is a bad spot to put your military in. And the option shouldn't be to kill them all or let them all go; the option should be to kill where you have to and, if you can, capture. Does the Senator agree with that?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I will turn this over to the Senator from New Hampshire, but my response would be as follows: There is a news article coming from somewhere within the State Department suggesting the CIA was responsible for consulate security because this mostly was a CIA operation. But there is an article coming out of the CIA corners basically saying: We responded very quickly and efficiently to the attack. Here is my problem. If you do not have a select committee listening to all the stories, it is pretty hard to put the puzzle together. My response would be, why did the people in the State Department assigned to Benghazi ask for support from the State Department if this was, in fact, a CIA responsibility? I want to hear the State Department explain that. In a news article, you are trying to create the impression that ``we are a secondary player.'' That would be news to every State Department official in Libya because they were asking the State Department for security. I wish to challenge the CIA's narrative of what they did and how they did it. But I want to hear the complete story. The Senator from New Hampshire has been an attorney general prosecuting cases, and I wish to get her input into how efficient she thinks it would be for three committees to do their own investigations, never talk to each other in a coordinated fashion, have a stovepipe investigation versus a coordinated, one-body-listening-to-everybody approach?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very grateful to engage. Here is the request of the body: Benghazi needs to be investigated. We need to find out what happened so it never happens again. We have four Americans killed, the first Ambassador killed in the line of duty in 33 years. That is worthy of our time. Dianne Feinstein is doing a very good job with Saxby Chambliss on the intel side. General Petraeus must testify. I think Secretary Clinton must testify. Here is the problem that I have with the approach we are taking. Armed services need to ask DOD: How could you not come to the aid of the consulate for almost 8 hours on September 11, of all days? The State Department needs to be asked: Why did you deny additional security requests that had been made for months, and could you not see this coming? And the CIA needs to be asked a lot of questions also. A select committee where we have members of intel, foreign relations, and armed services listening to all three agencies explain themselves I think is essential to get to the truth. I will not know what General Petraeus says in the intel committee, and I want to get to ask him questions. There will be people on the intel committee who will not be able to ask Secretary Panetta, General Hammond, and others about the DOD piece. This is a failure on many fronts and I think the best thing for the Senate to do is have a bipartisan select committee where we combine the resources of all three of the committees that have jurisdiction over different pieces, and create a professional approach to solving the problem. It will be run by our Democratic colleagues because they are in charge of the body, and should be. There have been times in the past--Iran Contra and other examples--of where committees combined their resources to make sure they fully understood what was being said. If we stovepipe this and one committee goes one way and the other committee goes another way, we are not going to get the complete picture of what happened in Benghazi. That is what we are asking, that the minority leader and majority leader create a select committee of the three committees that have primary jurisdiction over each moving part so we can get to the bottom of this. Here is why it is important: There are a lot of conspiracy theories going around on the Internet, and I wish to be able to say that is just not so because here is what we found. There are a lot of accusations being made against people I know and like. I wish to be able to say this accusation is unfounded. If unfortunately there is some accountability to be had by somebody I like, I can say here is why we had to do it. It would help us all to go to the public and say we did this together and in a professional and logical way and here are the results of our work product, so we can get Benghazi behind us and move forward. Until we do that, I think we are failing the American people. I think the process we are engaging in today is going to lead to uncoordinated fact-finding and pieces of the puzzle will never be put together because we are not talking and working together. I think we are going to let families down. The process we are engaging in today will not get to the truth.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank Senator Corker for his very good, country-by-country explanation; kind of a big picture, rational approach to what we are trying to do. I understand Senator Paul's convictions. A lot of Americans are frustrated. We are broke but giving money to people overseas. They all hate us. Well, they all don't hate us. Some do, some don't. Let's invest in the ones we can live with and stand up to the ones who want to kill us all. Before I turn it over to Senator Hoeven, one last thought about the world in which we live. We could get hit in the next minute. We could get hit today. We could get hit tomorrow. They are trying to get here as desperately as they can. Thank God for every day we have been able to survive without being attacked again in our homeland. But I would say this: One of the reasons we have been effective after 9/11 is that we are in their backyard. We are deployed over there--not just with military force but with assistance. We are making their lives more difficult by raising money and operating and being able to maneuver and find allies. To get to America now to attack us is harder than it was on September 10, 2001, because we are engaged in the fight. If we withdraw aid, we take one of the most valuable tools off the table. There has to be more tools in the tool kit than just bombing people or disengaging from the world. So this 1 percent of the budget is a godsend to those in the military. S.J. Res. 41 Now I will turn back to S.J. Res. 41. Senator Hoeven of North Dakota was my first Republican cosponsor of the idea that we cannot contain a nuclear-capable Iran, and I cannot tell my colleagues how much I appreciate his leadership. So I yield to Senator Hoeven.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, before I turn this over, may I have just 2 minutes to wrap up. I want to thank Senator Reid and Senator McConnell for scheduling this vote. Eighty-two Senators stand behind President Obama's statement that it is bad policy to contain a nuclear-capable Iran. Let me tell you right quickly why. If the Iranians get a nuclear weapon or nuclear capability, the Sunni Arab States will want one themselves to counter the Shia Persian influence, and you will have a nuclear arms race in the Mid East. That is not a good result. That is the road to Armageddon. Israel will never know a minute's peace. If the ayatollahs in Iran have a nuclear weapon, my God, what would living in Israel be like? Look at the threat you would live under the rest of your life. That is a no-go for the people of Israel. The big concern I have above all else is that the ayatollahs will share that nuclear capability, that technology with a terrorist group. The only reason thousands have died in the war on terror and not millions is they just cannot get the weapons to kill millions of us. And if the ayatollahs had those nuclear weapons or that capability, they would share it with terrorists. That is why containment is not a good idea. This is not an authorization to use force. It encourages sanctions. It encourages diplomacy. It says that all options are on the table. It is not authorizing force, but it is taking off the table the idea that the Iranians can get a nuclear weapon and we will try to contain them because that is just emptying Pandora's box. One last thought. An Israeli soldier was killed today because the Sinai border between Egypt and Israel was breached. Part of our aid to Egypt has conditions that say: If you break the treaty with Israel, you lose the money. And you need to beef up the security in the Sinai. The Egyptian Army is basically being driven out of the Sinai. They are moving back in. So if you really do care about the security of Israel, we cannot break relations with Egypt. It is a complicated relationship, but it is in our interest to be involved. Again, we are all over the world in different fashions, and I would rather be helping people help themselves than having to send soldiers in every time there is a hot spot in the world. We cannot disengage from the world. It is our destiny to be the leader of the free world; we just need to do it smartly. One percent of our budget is spent on foreign assistance. I think it makes sense. With that, I will yield the floor and thank all of my colleagues for jumping on board for a resolution that I think is timely. If the Senate of the United States ever needed to speak with one voice on a single topic, it is now, and that single topic is to the Iranian regime: You will not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, period. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this resolution has 83 cosponsors. Even I cannot lose this vote. This resolution says it will not be the policy of the United States to allow the Iranian regime to get a nuclear weapon and try to contain them. President Obama has rejected containment. Governor Romney, 83 Senators have said that is a bad idea. Very quickly, why will containment not work? If the Iranians get a nuclear weapon, every Sunni Arab state will want one themselves. Israel will never know a minute's peace. And my biggest fear: If we allow these people to get a nuclear weapon, they will share the technology with terrorists. The reason thousands have died in the war on terror-- not millions--is because the terrorists cannot get the weapons to kill millions. Senator Casey has been terrific. My Democratic colleagues, thank you for working in a bipartisan fashion. I yield now to Senator Casey.