Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank Senator Isakson, who is on the Foreign Relations Committee. He is a ranking member on the African subcommittee. He has, frankly, opened my eyes with what we are doing in Africa. A little money goes a long way in Africa, trying to prevent radical Islamists from taking over the continent of Africa, combating the Chinese who are trying to buy up all the resources, and using American taxpayer dollars to create an environment and create jobs back here at home and, frankly, save thousands if not millions of young children from certain death from AIDS and malaria. Johnny is everything right about being a Senator in that regard. I appreciate him coming down here today. If the Senator from New Hampshire doesn't mind, can we go to our good friend Senator Blumenthal? I have had the pleasure of going to Egypt with him and all these other hotspots and enjoyed working with him on this resolution. This started with a meeting in our offices, an idea to try to back up what President Obama said about not containing a nuclear-armed Iran. The next thing we know we are on the floor of the Senate today with 82 cosponsors. My good friend from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thanks to Senator Ayotte for helping to get this whole process going, for being on the Senate floor and for getting this whole process started, and for her strong voice on national security. Now I wish to recognize my friend, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Corker. He is on the Foreign Relations Committee and is moving up the ladder to be chairman or ranking member, depending on how the election comes out. But no matter how it comes out, Senator Corker will be there talking about constructive engagements and guarding the taxpayer dollar. I would like for him to give his thoughts about the Rand Paul amendment and the noncontainment of a nuclear-capable Iran.

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, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for the next hour.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I do see Senator Chambliss here. I will ask him a question and get his thoughts. To kind of follow on what Senator McCain said and to begin with, Rand Paul is a recently elected Senator who has come to the body with a lot of enthusiasm, and he is willing to make hard choices. I have worked with him on Medicare reform, on Social Security reform. I think he will take on the spending situation in this country very aggressively. I think he is very brave when it comes to entitlement reform. On that side of the ledger, I find myself very much in agreement with what he wants to do. But he does have a view of foreign policy that I think is ill-suited to the times and historically has not worn very well. As Senator McCain said, history is full of moments where America and other powers felt that now is the time to withdraw and let those people argue among themselves. The problem with letting ``those people''--and you just fill in the blank who they might be--argue among themselves is that it ignores the fact of what goes on in one place in the world can affect us, and there is no better example than 9/11. The entire operation to attack our Nation cost less than $1 million. The 20 or 21 terrorists who trained to attack us had about a $1 million budget. The author of this attack lived in a cave in a far-away place called Afghanistan. So it does matter what happens in places such as Afghanistan. Radical Islamists have no desire for democracy in the Mideast or anywhere else, and they are a force within the Mideast and throughout the world. But the good news for us is they are a minority force. The Taliban, which is a cousin of al-Qaida, basically, are very much rejected by the Afghan people. When traveling to Kabul today, one sees a city with electricity, with commerce, with cars, with movement, and with women in school. The average Afghan doesn't want to go back to the Taliban way of doing business, where there is no music, there is no interaction with each other except on terms set for them. So what we see on the television at night is a political struggle for the heart and soul of the Mideast. This has been going on for a long time and, finally, the lid blew. Egypt was an authoritarian, corrupt dictatorship. Tunisia. Libya was ruled by Qadhafi, Syria by Assad. What we see are people who have seen another way of living and they are saying, enough already, I am not going to be part of that anymore. I am going to try to change my life and my children's lives. Within that population there also are people who are dead set on making sure that nation in the Islamic world go backward, not forward. We have to take sides. If we don't take sides, if we sit on the sidelines, we will pay a price. I think it is better to help people fight the Taliban than it is to ignore the Taliban. I think it is good to go after al-Qaida in every country on the planet so they never know a moment of peace, but we can have a few moments of peace. I think it is better to fight these guys in their backyard than to stay home and let them come to our backyard. There is a reason we haven't been attacked in over 11 years. We have been on the offensive, and there are more ways to be on the offensive than just bombing people. The biggest fear of the Taliban and al-Qaida, beyond having a bomb dropped on their head--and they do not mind dying; they really don't like living. They will die in a heartbeat to make sure others can't live their lives the way they like. It is absolutely of no consequence to them to sacrifice their own life and take someone with them. Their goal is: If we are going to live, we are going to live their way, not our way. But their big fear is that people will have the capacity to say no to them and the ability to fight back and win in the countries in question. When we killed bin Laden, that was a moment of satisfaction and justice. But has that changed the war on terror? Have the terrorists given up? Have people said: Oh, the Americans killed bin Laden so we better not go over the wall in Egypt; we better not attack the consulate? No. This is a struggle between the modern world and forces of darkness, and the way America wins this war is to empower those in other countries to fight and win in their own country, without us having to be there with 100,000 troops all the time. The biggest nightmare of the Taliban and al-Qaida is to see built a one-room schoolhouse where kids can get an education, for the people to have clean drinking water that they own and control, where people can go to a courtroom rather than a sharia court to have conflicts resolved, and to see commerce and interaction with the rest of the world, to trade with the rest of the world. That is what they fear most. Our foreign assistance budget--foreign aid--is 1 percent of the entire Federal budget. If we took it off the table, we would be left with the following way to affect the world: Do nothing or bomb people. You know what, those men and women in uniform have been at war for 11 years. How about having a tool in America's toolbox to fight the enemy without having to use military force? When we clear a village of the Taliban, how do we hold and build that village? We bring in a health care clinic, something with the most rudimentary standards. It is not something we would even think about sending our kids to, but they welcome it because they have never had anything. We build a basic one- room schoolhouse, with a chalkboard and a few books. That lights up people's lives like we cannot believe. That is how we hold and build, with the State Department and the Department of Agriculture teaching people to plant crops other than heroin. That is the al-Qaida and Taliban's worst nightmare--and Egypt and Libya and Pakistan and Yemen, and fill in the blank, Afghanistan. Here is where I am going to challenge the judgment, quite frankly, of my friend Rand Paul. He has offered an amendment at one of the most critical times in the history of the Mideast that would break, that would sever all aid, all assistance to Libya, Egypt, and Pakistan. Why are we so upset by this thought process? Trust me, I know we are broke--$16 trillion in debt--and that America is struggling more now than at any other time in my adult life and that we have to get our fiscal house in order. But how do we live in peace and prosperity with the rest of the world in flames? If we want to pay $10 a gallon for gas, turn the Mideast over to these crazy nut jobs. Here is my view of what we should do. We should stay in this fight and we should do more things than just bomb people. We should help them help themselves. The good news is most people appreciate our help. What we see on TV is the result not of a film but of radical Islamists taking advantage of a moment. Yes, the cultures are different. It is hard for people in the Mideast to understand that a film could be made disrespecting Islam without the government approving of it, because in their world nothing gets done without the government approving it. So it is important for us to say: This has nothing to do with the United States Government or the American people. This is the result of some crazy group of people who have what we call freedom of speech. It is uncomfortable, but that is the way we are. I think it is important to let the Mideast know, and Muslims in general, that this is the way we operate. We reject the disrespect shown to anyone's religion, and that is not who we are as a people, but freedom of speech does exist here. The reason we need to explain that is because in their world they can't imagine something being done like this without the government blessing it. Having said that, there is no excuse in any society to do harm to another human being because of the way somebody speaks or acts unless it is an act of violence. Senator Paul is proposing disengagement in three of the most volatile areas of the Mideast at a time when it means the most. The way he has written this amendment should make everyone pause and evaluate how they want to vote. AIPAC, which most of us are familiar with, has indicated the way the amendment is written, if there is an act of violence against a U.S. interest in Israel, maybe we would have to withdraw our aid to Israel. But they have said they oppose the Rand Paul amendment because they know what happens to Egypt if this were to ever pass and become law. The treaty Senator McCain referred to was the Camp David Accords. Israel and Egypt have been living under a peace treaty for decades now. Part of the deal was that America would provide aid to Egypt and Israel, and if we broke the agreement with Egypt, that would break the treaty with Israel. So do not tell me or anybody else you support Israel if you vote for this amendment, because one of two things is going on: Either you have no idea what it means to support Israel or you are trying to pull the wool over my eyes. It is impossible to support the security of the Israeli nation and vote for this amendment because it will lead to the breach of a treaty with one of their strongest neighbors--80 billion people living in Egypt. It will unravel a delicate balance that has existed for decades. And I will be recorded as having no part of that. Imagine if this amendment passed what the chatter would be on every Islamic Web site in the world. And by the way, if these people had a PAC, they would be supporting this amendment. I know Rand Paul is as patriotic as anyone in this body, but the fact of the matter is the crazy Islamic extremist terrorists who try to kill us all would love nothing more than this to pass. They know they cannot win if we stay engaged helping people, so they are trying to drive us out because that is their best hope of winning the day. So if we want to empower the terrorists who exist in this world, we should pass this amendment because they will go crazy with hope and excitement that their tactics are working. And if we want to destroy the hope of everybody in the Mideast who has been brave enough to stand up to these thugs and lose their family members, if we want to break their spirit, then vote to pass this amendment. If this amendment passes, good luck finding anybody anywhere in the world who will partner with us, who would be brave enough to stand up to these thugs and say: You will not have my children's future. If this amendment passed, America could never look anyone in the eye again in the Mideast and say: Stand with me. You can count on me. Ladies and gentlemen of the United States, and my colleagues in the Senate, I wish the world were not as screwed up as it is. I wish it would change. I hate the fact we have been at war and we have spent so much money. But I am telling you this right now: These are historic times in which we live. And every time in history when good people were confronted with evil and they blinked, millions died, not thousands. The only reason millions haven't died in the war on terror is the nut jobs who want to kill us all can't get ahold of weapons to do it. If you don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon, if that bothers you--that they may get a nuclear weapon and throw the whole region into a nuclear arms race or share that technology with a terrorist organization to use it against us--then vote against this amendment. Because if this passed, what would the Iranians think about America's resolve to deal with them? The last thing I am going to talk about is the vision of the author of this amendment, who, honest to goodness, is a friend, but on this issue I think he is dead wrong. Senator Paul had the guts to write a budget, and I give him credit for that, but look at the vision of this amendment when it comes to our role in the world. In his budget, the American military's budget was reduced by 16 percent in the first year. This foreign assistance account I was talking about, which gives us a tool other than killing people--staying engaged and trying to build up their lives so they can live in peace with us, and is about $50 billion, or about 1 percent of the budget--under his proposal it goes down to $5 billion after 2014 and is frozen there forever. It is important to note that the author of this amendment believes we can gut the military--and that is exactly what he does with military spending--and then take all the assets we have to help people off the table and we will be safe. I don't know how in the world anyone can believe, given the times in which we live, it is a good idea to take military spending below historic levels, disengage from the world, and have absolutely no influence on nations other than trying to use military force. I hope my colleagues will come to the floor and resist the temptation to do something that sounds good in a 30-second sound bite. I know people are frustrated and war weary, and I know we are broke, and we would like to leave everybody else alone, but they are not going to leave us alone. Look how much money we have spent after 9/11. Look what 20 people can do to this Nation if we disengage from the world. So now I would like to ask the question of my colleague, Senator Chambliss, who is the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee--and I have asked this of the author--when you wrote this amendment disengaging from Libya, Egypt, and Pakistan, which is a nuclear-armed nation, did you ask anybody in the intelligence community? General David Petraeus? If there is ever an American hero of modern times, it is he. Have you ever asked him or Senator Chambliss or anybody else: Oh, by the way, I am thinking about pulling the plug on our aid to Pakistan, Egypt, and Libya. What is your view of that? Have you been asked that question?

Mr. GRAHAM. Just briefly. I was very disappointed in the briefing yesterday too. The bottom line is that we asked questions like: How many security people were at the Benghazi consulate? We will have to get back with you. And you pick up the New York Times and you get a blow-by-blow description of what supposedly went on. So it was very frustrating, like pulling teeth to get information yesterday. A lot of Senators are frustrated. You pick up major papers in the country and you find details not shared with you. One of the things I am worried about is that we are trying to find out who committed these terrible acts of terrorism. They were acts of terrorism, not a spontaneous riot. We said: What is the game plan? Will they be held as enemy combatants? Are they going to be held as common criminals? Will they be prosecuted in Libya? Will they be brought back to the United States? Do you have to read them Miranda rights? There was absolutely not a whole lot of information. But at the end of the day, I think it was a lost opportunity to inform the Congress. Can we now move to the Rand Paul amendment?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we are going to have a nice discussion between Republicans and Democrats about an important issue. If you are looking for bipartisanship, your ship has come in. S.J. Res. 41 has 82 cosponsors. I am not sure we could get 82 of us to agree that Sunday should be a day off, but we have done it when it comes to the concept of not allowing the Iranian ayatollahs to possess a nuclear weapon and trying to contain them. S.J. Res. 41 has 82 cosponsors. The Presiding Officer is one of them. To my Democratic colleagues, Senators Blumenthal, Coons, Menendez, Casey--Senator Casey was the first one to step up--Senator Lieberman--it has been a real joy to work in a bipartisan fashion over something that matters, that if there is a time for the Senate to speak, it is now, regarding Iran's desire to get a nuclear weapon. President Obama has rejected containing a nuclear-armed Iran as a national strategy. Mr. President, you are dead right on that. I know Governor Romney agrees. What I wish to do is recognize my good friend from Georgia, Senator Isakson, and we have Senator Ayotte here, to share their thoughts. I will be joining later, and certainly Senator Blumenthal, who has been one of the leading voices on the Democratic side for this resolution. At this time I wish to yield for Senator Isakson.

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, lucky you to be presiding today. We live in interesting times. You can receive a Nobel Peace Prize for not being somebody else. Now, 4 years later almost after the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded, where do we stand as a Nation? In case you have not heard, bin Laden is dead. That is good. That is a great accomplishment. The President should take pride in that. We should all celebrate the death of that evil man. But that is not foreign policy. Is anybody deterred from attacking America's interest in the Middle East because bin Laden is dead? Is anybody saying: I better not go over the wall of that Embassy in Egypt because we killed bin Laden? There is no coherent foreign policy at a time when we need one. Four years later, after a charm offensive and an apology tour that has not worked, our enemies are on steroids and our friends are unsure about who we are. I will make a prediction: If this continues, the world is going to devolve into chaos, because at a time when we need to be certain, we are unsure. The Iranians are not taking anything we say seriously and the Russians and the Chinese have corrupted the U.N. So much for restarting.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I will be brief. There is not a whole lot to be added to the eloquent statements of my two friends other than to be here and to let the family of Chris Stevens know that we saw in their loved one what you saw--a wonderful man who did great things with a life cut way too short. I do not think most Americans can ever appreciate the leadership Chris provided in Libya and throughout the world at a time when we needed it the most. So America has lost one of her greatest diplomats, the Libyans have lost one of their best friends, and the family has lost their dear loved one. The one thing I can say for sure--Senator Lieberman just mentioned it--do not compound this tragedy. The worst possible outcome is to take the death of this wonderful, noble man and use it as an excuse to withdraw from Libya and the region and turn it over to the thugs who killed him. Chris would not want that, it is not in our national security interest, and Republicans and Democrats do not want that. To the American people who are war-weary and frustrated, I totally get it. But the Arab spring--call it what you like--is a historic opportunity to change things in the Middle East. It will not come without a fight. What we are trying to do in the Mideast and what the people in the Mideast are trying to do is have a better life for themselves. If you are a young person, you have been exposed to life outside of the corrupt country in which you live and you see it can be better and, quite frankly, you are demanding it can be better. You are demanding a better say if you are a young woman. You are demanding economic opportunity if you come from a certain class, not available to you today. And Chris Stevens risked his life because he understood that those demands were just and in our best interests. The people whom we are fighting and the people the Libyan people are fighting are the ones who have no interest in this agenda of being able to choose a better path for young women, being able to be tolerant, open, accept free markets, and to have a place where people can live their own dreams. The world which we are fighting--your dreams are defined by the Ayatollah. Your aspirations are defined by someone else's view of where you should go and what you should be based on their interpretation of God's plan for you. That, to me, is so unacceptable that it compels people like Chris Stevens to risk their lives. That is what is at stake. The good news is that we will beat these folks. The ace in the hole is that the people in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Afghanistan, and Iraq now have been exposed to a different way of life. Given the capacity, they have the will to fight back. But if we think this is going to be done without a struggle, we are kidding ourselves. Chris knew that. He knew the fight that was going on for the heart and soul of the Arab spring in Libya was a fight worth engaging in and, yes, risking one's life for. What more can you say about a fellow human being, an American, than the fact that they realized their time on Earth could be best spent in service of a cause, as Senator McCain said, greater than themselves. Chris understood what was at stake. He went to a place he did not have to go. He accepted risks he could have avoided. He did it for all the right reasons. The one thing we should all unite around is that what compelled Chris Stevens to risk his life is absolutely in our national security interest; that is, to get the Mideast right, have a second opportunity never known before in the Mideast to live in peace with people who in the past wanted to kill us all. I am convinced that if we stick with it and we learn the lessons of Chris Stevens' life, we will eventually prevail because the ones who want to kill us all are really a minority. The ones who would live with us in peace if they could just need our help. Let it be said that Chris Stevens was there to help.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. That is what we have been told in the paper. We also have a story about the kill list--a blow-by-blow description of how President Obama personally oversees who gets killed by drones in Pakistan, and at the end of the day, I am not so sure that is something we should all be reading about. But if that is not enough, what about releasing the Pakistani doctor--the person who allegedly helped us find bin Laden, and his role in this effort to find bin Laden is also in the paper, and now he is in jail in Pakistan. The sum total is that the leaks have been devastating. They have put people's lives at risk. They have compromised our national security, unlike anything I have seen, and people expect us to sit on the sidelines and let the White House investigate itself? No way. Those who wrote letters in the past suggesting that Bush could not impartially investigate himself, where are they today? Is this the rule: We can't trust Republicans, but we can trust Democratic administrations to get to the bottom of things they are involved in up to their eyebrows? Do we think it is an accident that all of these books quote senior White House officials? There is a review of one of the books the Senator from Arizona mentioned that talked about the unprecedented access to the National Security Adviser. There is a vignette in one of the books where the Secretary of Defense goes up to the National Security Adviser and suggests a new communications strategy when it comes to the programs we are talking about: Shut the F up. Well, that makes great reading, but at the end of the day, should we be reading about all this? People's lives are at stake. Programs have been compromised. Our allies are very reluctant now to do business with us. This was, in my view, an intentional effort by people at the highest level in the White House to leak these stories for political purposes. And to accept that Eric Holder is going to appoint two people within his sphere of influence and call it a day is acceptable. That is not going to happen. We are going to do everything we can to right this ship, and we are asking no more of our Democratic colleagues than they asked of the Bush administration. To our Democratic colleagues: How do you justify this? How do you justify that you couldn't investigate Abramoff without a special counsel and you couldn't investigate what Scooter Libby may or may not have done without a special counsel, but it is OK not to have one here? How do you do that?

Mr. GRAHAM. Absolutely.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, my comment, in response to the question Senator McCain has, is what we do today becomes precedent for tomorrow. So are we going to sit on the sidelines here and allow the Attorney General--who is under siege by our colleagues in the House about the way he has handled Fast and Furious and other matters--to appoint two U.S. attorneys who have to answer to him to investigate allegations against the very White House that appointed him? The reason so many Democrats wrote to President Bush and said, You cannot possibly investigate the Scooter Libby-Valerie Plame leak because it involves people very close to you--well, let's read some of the letters. Biden, Daschle, Schumer, and Levin letter to President Bush, October 9, 2003: We are at risk of seeing this investigation so compromised that those responsible for this national security breach will never be identified and prosecuted. Public confidence in the integrity of this investigation would be substantially bolstered by the appointment of a special counsel. Senator Biden: I think they should appoint a special prosecutor, but if they're not going to do that, which I suspect they're not, is get the information out as quick as they possibly can. This is not a minor thing . . . There's been a federal crime committed. The question is who did it? And the President should do everything in his power to demonstrate that there's an urgency to find that out. Then he goes on later and says: There's been a federal crime committed. You can't possibly investigate yourself because people close to you are involved. In the Abramoff scandal, which involved Jack Abramoff, a person very close to House leadership and some people in the Bush administration, and our Democratic colleagues, 34 of them, said the following: FBI officials have said that the Abramoff investigation ``involves systematic corruption within the highest levels of government.'' Such an assertion indicates extraordinary circumstances and it is in the public interest that you act under your existing statutory authority to appoint a special counsel. So our Democratic colleagues back during the Bush administration said, We don't trust you enough to investigate compromising national security by having an agent outed allegedly by members of your administration. We don't trust the Republican Party apparatus enough to investigate Jack Abramoff, because you are so close to him, and you should have a special counsel appointed. Well, guess what. They did. Here is what I am saying. I don't trust this White House to investigate themselves. I think this reeks of a coverup. I think the highest levels of this government surrounding the President, intentionally, over a 45-day period, leaked various stories regarding our national security programs, to make the administration look strong on national security. I don't think it is an accident that we are reading in the paper about efforts by the administration and our allies to use cyber attacks against the Iranian nuclear program as a way to try to head Israel off from using military force. I don't know if it happened, but the details surrounding the cooperation between us and Israel and how we engaged in cyber attacks against the Iranian nuclear program are chilling and something we should not read about in the paper. The second thing we read about in the paper was how we disrupted the underwear bomber plot where there was a double agent who had infiltrated an al-Qaida cell, I believe it was in Yemen, and how we were able to break that up; and the man was given a suicide vest that was new technology and couldn't be detected by the current screening devices at the airports, and how we were able to basically infiltrate that cell, and God knows the damage done to our allies and that operation.

Mr. GRAHAM. Whatever the Senator from Illinois wishes to do. I am dying to hear how my Democratic colleagues think it is good government not to have a special independent counsel investigate the most damaging national security leak in decades. I am dying to hear the explanation.

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, I tell you what. Why don't we let my colleague speak, and then the Senator from Illinois will have all the time he needs. What does my colleague, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, think?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to three fallen National Guard members from South Carolina who were killed in Afghanistan on June 20, 2012, in Khost Province. They were members of the 133rd Military Police Company who were serving on this duty. There are now 16 members of the South Carolina National Guard who have died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003. With the July 4 weekend coming up, we are preceding one of our biggest holidays in America, and people rightfully will take some time off, I hope, to enjoy their families and friends and get away from work and have some family time. It marks a special event in our Nation's history: The founding of our Nation through a declaration of independence that was not just words but resulted in men and women fighting to achieve our independence. Here we are a couple hundred years later and we are still fighting. My belief is, as to the radical Islamists who would kill us all if they could, it is better to fight them over there so we do not have to fight them here. Afghanistan was the place the Taliban took over after the Russians left and invited al-Qaida into the country, with bin Laden as their honored guest. He had sanctuary there and was able to plan the attacks of 9/11 from sanctuary provided to him in Afghanistan. Our goal is to never let Afghanistan become a sanctuary for al-Qaida or other terrorist groups. Thus, we are in a long struggle. It has been 10 years. It has been hard, but we are making progress. The Afghan Army is getting better and stronger. The police are getting more proficient at their job. We are going to be winding the war down in 2014. But I think we can do it in a fashion to make sure Afghanistan remains stable and our national security interests are protected. But to make all those things possible--the weekend we are going to enjoy, and the holiday season, and denying terrorists safe havens--some of us have to leave our families and go off and fight this war. SFC Brad Thomas of Easley, SC, was killed in an attack on June 20. He was a graduate of Travelers Rest High School and attended Greenville Technical College. He was a member of the 133rd Military Police Company of the South Carolina Army National Guard. He is survived by his wife Jana and a son Cayden, a brother and two sisters. I know the family is devastated. You are in our prayers, and God bless you and give you the healing and understanding during this tough time. To SFC Brad Thomas, you died in the service of your country, and you will be missed. LT Ryan Davis Rawl of Lexington, SC, was killed in the same attack. He was a first lieutenant in the 133rd MP Company. He graduated from Lexington High School. He was a graduate of the Citadel. He is survived by his wife Katherine and their daughter Callie and their son Caleb. I just want to acknowledge to Katherine, who interned in our office, that you are certainly in our prayers. You did a great job for us, and anything we can do for any of these families in South Carolina, we will. We very much pray for you and your family. Sgt John ``J.D.'' David Meador, II, graduated from Lexington High School. He was a member of the wrestling team and was a wrestling coach. He was a member of the same MP Company. He is survived by his wife Christy and three daughters: Olivia, Brianna, and Elana. To Christy and her family, you will be in our prayers. This will be a tough weekend in South Carolina. We are going to have three funerals. To General Livingston and the National Guard family, you are certainly in our prayers. This is a tough blow for an MP company to have three people killed in one attack. So to all the members of that company, we will do our best to take care of your families while you are gone. We have had a big argument about health care and about transportation, and that is great--democracy in action. What is the right decision for the Court to have made in the health care case? Is this a good transportation bill? I appreciate in a bipartisan fashion trying to find a solution. But I just wanted to take a few minutes before going to the holiday weekend and remind us of one thing we do have in common: Our freedom depends on people willing to fight for it, and the one thing about this war--whether you agree with the war in Afghanistan or not--virtually every American, regardless of political persuasion, has shown an appreciation for the troops and their families. I cannot thank Members of Congress enough for never losing sight. No matter how they feel about this war, we all appreciate those who fight it, and we all suffer and mourn for those who lose their lives in this cause. I believe this is a just cause. I believe these men who joined the military voluntarily and left their families to go to Afghanistan were doing so in the most noble tradition of the country--that they were trying to make our families safer, my family safer, and they died in the service of their country. And that is a life well lived. They died far too soon. They left behind young children, but they will never be forgotten. May God grant them eternal rest and peace. May God bless and provide understanding and healing to the families left behind. And may, as Americans, we never forget that our freedom is dependent upon a few of us being willing to go to faraway places, with strange sounding names, and risk never coming back.

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, one, I hope my colleagues will stay around for a minute or two because this is an important topic to be talking about. Let me put this in the perspective of what we are trying to do and what we are trying to avoid. We are about $16 trillion in debt. There is probably no stronger defense supporters in the Congress than Jon Kyl and John McCain. The Senator just spoke of war. John McCain has seen his fair share of war. I think he understands as well as anybody in this body--probably better than most--what happens in war. People get hurt and people get killed and anybody who has been in the military is no fan of war. But the goal sometimes is to make sure those who are asked to fight a particular war can fight it quickly, overwhelmingly, win, and come home. What we are doing is trying to get out of debt. The three of us are pretty big defense hawks, but we have all agreed the Pentagon has to reduce their spending too. I think all of us--particularly Senator McCain--believe there is a lot of waste in the Pentagon and that we could achieve $50 billion in savings over the next decade by reforming the way the Pentagon does business and, quite frankly, do more with less. So count us all in--the three of us--for reducing defense spending to help get us out of debt. But here is what has us all upset. The supercommittee that was formed by the Budget Control Act had a mission of cutting $1.2 trillion over a decade to help get us out of debt. That is a pretty small number given what we are going to spend over the next 10 years. But the committee-- Republicans and Democrats--could not find common ground as to how to cut $1.2 trillion over the next decade. There was a penalty provision in the law, and it said that in the event the supercommittee failed, we would cut $1.2 trillion over the next decade as follows: $600 billion out of the Defense Department, $600 billion out of the rest of the government. If that penalty kicks in, then we will have cut $1 trillion out of the Defense Department over the next decade, blindly, across the board. Every account gets affected. What did Secretary Panetta say? He said: Sign me up for $450 billion. I think we can get there. We will lose some capability, but we will be OK as a nation. We could fight Iran and win if we had to. Then I asked him: What if we did $1 trillion over the next decade--if we overdoubled what you are trying to cut? He said: We would be shooting ourselves in the head as a nation. We would not have the ability to go in and take out the nuclear program in Iran because the weapons we need we could not maintain and afford. When it comes to personnel costs, we are reducing the Army by 80,000 people under the $450 billion plan. If we do sequestration on top of that, I say to Senator McCain, we are taking another 100,000 people out of the Army. Under sequestration, the Navy would be down to a little over 200 ships. We would have the smallest Navy since 1915, the smallest Air Force in the history of the country, and the Army would go back to 1940 levels. To my colleagues, do you believe the world has gotten that much safer that we do not need a Navy bigger than in 1915, given the threats we are facing from Iran, China, North Korea? Do you think now is a good time for the country to basically disarm, given the threats we face from radical terrorism throughout the whole globe? So here is what we are going to do, and our congressional leaders need to be on notice. About 1 million people would lose their jobs if we put these cuts in place, and we would destroy the defense industrial base that provides good jobs to the economy and keeps us free and safe by giving our people technology better than the enemy has. Three National Guardsmen were killed in June in Afghanistan. We have improved the National Guard. But when we first started this war, National Guard units were leaving to go to the fight with inferior equipment. They did not have armor. So if we do sequestration on top of what we are already trying to cut in the Defense Department, we will destroy the finest military in the history of the world at a time we need it the most. This is a body known for doing some pretty dumb things. This would be the prize. So what Senators McCain, Kyl, and myself are trying to do is avoid sequestration before the first of the year so our defense people can plan. If we do not set this aside before the election, that is political malpractice. I thank Senator McCain and Senator Kyl for their leadership.

Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. I would like all three Senators to comment on this proposition. You have just challenged the President, who is the Commander in Chief, by the way, to fix the problem that your Secretary of Defense has said would be most devastating to our ability to defend ourselves. He said it would be catastrophic, it would be draconian, there is no way to plan for it, we would be shooting ourselves in the head. Mr. President, you are the Commander in Chief. When your Secretary of Defense and every general under your command is telling you and the Congress, you need to fix this before it gets out of hand, why are you not asking us, as Republicans and Democrats, to answer the call of the Secretary of Defense? You are the Commander in Chief, my friend. It is your job to make sure our military has what it needs to go fight wars that we send them to fight and protect our Nation. But that is not enough. It is also our job as Members of Congress to take care of those who serve. So to our Republican and Democratic leader: Why do you not convene a group of Senators? And to our leaders in the House: Why do you not get a group of House Members, and ask us to come up with a plan to do at least one thing, avoid the consequence of sequestration for 1 year in 2013, to take the monkey off their back? I am willing to meet our Democratic friends in the middle to find a way to offset the $110 billion in defense and nondefense spending. But to our leaders and to the President, if you think the rest of us are going to sit on the sideline and let this matter be taken up in lameduck when it becomes a nightmare for the country, you can forget it. So we are challenging our leaders and the President to get a group together to fix this. I ask Senator McCain, do you think that is a good idea?

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, it is.

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, there are a couple observations I would like to make about the historic ruling by the Supreme Court today. No. 1 is about the legislative process. Members of Congress during the debate on Obama health care had a very passionate, heated debate which is part of democracy. As I recall the debate, when people on our side suggested this is a tax increase, that all the fines and costs associated with the health care bill would be a massive tax increase, our friends on the other side, almost to a person, said: No, this is not a tax increase. President Obama assured the American people during the debate that the fine is not a tax. I think the reason that was so is because if we debated this bill and the only way we could pass the bill is using the power of Congress to tax under the Constitution, there would not have been 10 votes for the legislation. Nobody would have wanted to go home and say I just increased your taxes by billions of dollars over the next 10 years to fix health care, because I think most Americans believe our health care in this country needs to be reformed, and it is in many ways broken and needs to be fixed, but there are very few people in this country who believe we don't tax enough and that is the problem with health care. That is not the problem. The problem with health care is not the lack of how much we tax, it is the lack of choices people have and the competition when it comes to purchasing health care. Many of us want to give people a chance to buy health care outside of the State in which they live, which they cannot do today. Many of us believe some form of medical malpractice reform will lower costs. Many of us are for preventing preexisting illnesses being used to deny health care. I would like to give individuals the same tax writeoffs as businesses have when it comes to purchasing health care, and I am willing to help those who do not have the money to buy health care to be able to purchase health care in the private sector. I am willing to do a lot of things, but I am not willing to impose a massive tax increase to fix health care. Also, I do not think it is fair for people in the body, during the debate on a bill, to say: This is not a tax increase, vote for the bill, and wind up having to be told by the Court the only way this is legal is for it to be a tax increase. Here is my challenge to every Member of the Democratic Party who said this was not a tax increase when we debated the bill. I am asking now, if they did not want to increase taxes to fix health care, repeal this bill and work with me and others to find a way to fix health care without a massive tax increase. If after the Supreme Court ruling they are still OK with the legislation, be honest enough to go back home and say: I raised your taxes to fix health care because I thought that was the right thing to do. Then let's have a debate about whether that is the right thing to do. I can promise, it is not the right thing to have a debate where the President of the United States and the architects of the bill assure everyone they are not having a tax increase when, in fact, that is the only way this bill can stand. I believe we all owe it to the American people to be on record. If after today's ruling Senators are still for this legislation, have the courage to tell the American people: I am for it, even though I had to raise your taxes to make it happen. Stand behind what they believe. If someone believed at the time this should not be considered a tax increase and they are upset or they are worried that it is now being called a tax increase and they think that is wrong, have the courage to say let's start over. Nobody is going to hold it against a political leader who is willing to change their mind if it makes sense. I cannot think of a better opportunity for Congress to revisit an issue than this. If there is ever a bill that needed to be revisited it is the Obama health care bill. It needs to be revisited and it needs to start over because it was passed on a party-line vote. It was passed with statements being made that this is not a tax increase when it turned out to be. I hope we have the wisdom and the courage to start over and sort of get this thing right. The second point I would like to make is that no one in this country has suggested that health care needs to be fixed through a massive tax increase. Let's find a better model to fix health care than hundreds of billions of dollars of new taxes. A final thought is, how do we move forward? In November of 2012, every person who voted for Obama health care told their constituents this is not a tax. They owe it to their constituents to go back and say: Listen, the Supreme Court said this can only stand with it being a tax. I am either OK with that or I would like a second chance to fix it. President Obama is a good man and sincerely believes that health care needs to be reformed in a certain way. I agree it needs to be reformed but not in this way. The President owes it to the American people to correct his statement when he assured us all this was not a tax increase. Many Americans found comfort in that. I have always believed the Court could uphold this law under one theory and one theory only. I never believed the commerce clause was so broad that we in Congress could compel someone to buy a product they did not want. The Court said today that the commerce clause cannot be used in such a fashion. The bill was sold as a power within the commerce clause. The Court said today the commerce clause will not allow Congress to make the public buy a product. That is not commerce. That should make all of us feel better that there are some limits on the commerce clause vis-a-vis our Congress. But the Court did say when it comes to the power of a tax to tax, the Congress's discretion is broad. That is constitutionally true, and it has always been so. The Congress has the power to raise taxes to pay for a war. Even though we may disagree with the war, we have it in our power to say for the public good we are going to raise taxes to pay for a war. Congress also has the power, in my view, to say: The health care system is broken. We are going to raise taxes to fix it. I don't think that is the right answer, but I think that is within our power. The Court said today the fine is really a tax. Now that we know it is really a tax, what are we going to do about it? Are we going to leave in place the largest tax increase in modern history to fix health care or are we going to be smart enough, wise enough, and courageous enough to start over? I hope we are wise enough, courageous enough, and smart enough to start over and this time do it in a way that is truly bipartisan. The worst possible outcome for the American people is for the Congress to pass legislation that affects one-fifth or one-sixth of the economy and say this is not a tax, and at the end of the day that is the only way the law can stand is for it to be a tax. So I hope between now and the election we can have another debate about health care. All those who stand by this product need to tell their constituents: I believe in this product, and I am willing to tax you in a large way to make it happen. If we had had that debate to begin with, this bill would have never passed and we would have worked together. Second chances are hard to get in life. Congress now has a second chance. One final thought about Medicaid expansion. Congress said we are going to expand Medicaid dramatically under this proposal to insure people not covered by Medicaid today. If you are 133 percent above poverty, you would be included in Medicaid. In my State 31 percent of South Carolinians would be eligible for Medicaid under the Obama health care formula. That would mean an additional $1 billion of a matching requirement by the State of South Carolina to get the Federal money. That means my State would have to cut education, raise taxes, or cut public safety to come up with the money to match Medicaid expansion under the Obama health care act. The Supreme Court said we cannot do that to the States. We cannot expand Medicaid dramatically, which will bankrupt States and tell them if they don't agree with the expansion, they lose all the money under the program; that is coercive. In September of last year, along with Senator Barrasso, I introduced legislation called the Graham-Barrasso bill, which would allow States to opt-out of Obama Medicaid expansion and still receive the money they receive under the current program. That is basically what the Court said we should be doing. So I hope the Republican leader will impress upon the Democratic leader to bring up the bill we introduced last September and legislatively allow States to opt out of Medicaid expansion under ObamaCare if they choose to. I guarantee there will be a bunch of red and blue States opting out of Medicaid expansion under this bill because it will make them hopelessly bankrupt, and that is not the way to solve health care for the poor. That part of the bill needs to be addressed too. This is a historic ruling by the Supreme Court, but for it really to be historic in its fullest sense, Congress should take this historic opportunity to revisit health care and get this right without a massive tax increase. I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask consent to be recognized for 5 minutes to speak about the Supreme Court's ruling.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I think it not only would serve Mr. Holder well, but certainly the country well. We are setting the precedent that if we do not appoint a special counsel--and I don't know these two U.S. attorneys at all. I am sure they are fine men. But the special counsel provisions that are available to the Attorney General need to be embraced because it creates an impression and, quite frankly, a legal infrastructure to put the special counsel above common politics. The precedent we are about to set in the Senate if we vote down this resolution is, in this case, we don't need to assure the public that we don't have to worry, the person involved is not going to be interfered with; that in this case we don't need the special counsel, and there is no need for it. Well, to my colleagues on the other side, how many of them said we needed a special counsel--Peter Fitzgerald--who was not in the jurisdiction--Illinois wasn't the subject matter of the Valerie Plame leaks. It happened in Washington. When Peter Fitzgerald was chosen as a special counsel, the country said that is a good choice, chosen under the special counsel provisions, which are designed to avoid a conflict of interest. What is the problem? For us to say we don't need one here is a precedent that will haunt the country and this body and future White Houses in a way that I think is very disturbing, I say to the Senator from Arizona, because if we needed one for Valerie Plame--allegations of outing a CIA agent--and if we needed one for Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist who had infiltrated the highest levels of the government, why would we need one here? Is this less serious? The allegations we are talking about are breathtaking. Go read Mr. Sanger's book as he describes Operation Olympic Games. It reads like a novel about how the administration, trying to avoid an Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear program, worked with the Israelis to create a cyber attack on the Iranian nuclear program, and how successful it was. It literally reads like a novel. What about the situation regarding the Underwear Bomber case, a plot that was thwarted by a double agent. One could read every detail about the plot and how dangerous it was and how successful we were in stopping it from coming about. Then, how we got bin Laden and sharing information with a movie producer, but telling the world about the Pakistani doctor and how we used him to track down bin Laden.