Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. That takes us to the bin Laden information. In the book there is a scenario where the Secretary of Defense went to the National Security Adviser, Thomas Donilon, and said, ``I have a new communication strategy for you regarding the bin Laden raid: Shut the F up.'' But the drone program, a blow-by-blow description of how the President handpicks who gets killed and who doesn't. This is breathtaking. Certainly, it is on par with Abramoff and Plame, I think, the biggest national security compromise in generations. For our friends on the other side to say we don't need a special counsel here, but they were the ones arguing for one in the other two cases, sets a terrible precedent, and we are not going to let this happen without one heck of a fight. Senator Obama wrote a letter with a large group of colleagues urging the Bush administration to appoint a special counsel and to have an independent congressional investigation on top of that of the Valerie Plame CIA leak case. He also joined in a letter with his Democratic colleagues urging the Bush administration to appoint a special counsel in the Jack Abramoff case because the allegations were that Mr. Abramoff had access to the highest levels of government and that extraordinary circumstances existed. What are we talking about here? We are talking about leaks of national security done in a 45-day period that paint this President as a strong, decisive national security leader. The book questions--not just the articles--is there any reason to believe this may go to the White House? Look what happened with the Scooter Libby prosecution in the Valerie Plame case. The Chief of Staff of the Vice President of the United States eventually was held accountable for his involvement. Is there any reason to believe that senior White House people may be involved in these leaks? Just read the articles. But this is a book review by Mr. Thomas Riggs of the book in question by Mr. Sanger. Throughout, Mr. Sanger clearly has enjoyed great access to senior White House officials, most notably to Thomas Donilon, the National Security Adviser. Mr. Donilon, in fact, is the hero of the book as well as the commentator of record on events. It goes on and on in talking about how these programs were so successful. Here is the problem. In the House, when a program is not so successful, such as Fast and Furious, that is embarrassing to the administration. One can't literally get information with a subpoena. So we have an administration and an Attorney General's Office that is about to be held in contempt by the House for not releasing information about the Fast and Furious Program that was embarrassing. When we have programs that were successful and make the White House look strong and the President look strong, we can read about it in the paper. All we are asking for is what Senator Obama and Senator Biden asked for in previous national security events involving corruption of the government: a special counsel to be appointed, with the powers of a special counsel, somebody we can all buy into. If we set a precedent of not doing it here, I think it will be a huge mistake.

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.

Mr. GRAHAM. I guess the difference is we are supposed to trust Democratic administrations, and we can't trust Republican administrations. I guess that is the difference. It is the only difference I can glean here. Certainly, the subject matter in question is as equal to or more serious in terms of how it has damaged the Nation and in terms of the structure of a special counsel. If we thought it was necessary to make sure the Abramoff investigation could lead to high-level Republicans, which it did, and if we thought the Valerie Plame case needed a special counsel to go into the White House because that is where it went, why would we not believe it would help the country as a whole to appoint somebody we can all buy into in this case, give them the powers of a special counsel? That is what was urged before when the shoe was on the other foot. This is a very big deal. We are talking about serious criminal activity. Apparently, the suspects are at the highest level of government, and I believe it was done for political purposes. To not appoint a special counsel would set a precedent that I think is damaging for the country and is absolutely unimaginable in terms of how someone could differentiate this case from the other two we have talked about. To my Democratic colleagues: Don't go down this road. Don't be part of setting a precedent of not appointing a special counsel for some of the most serious national security leaks in recent memory--maybe in the history of the country--while at the same time most of my Democratic colleagues were on the record asking about a special counsel about everything and anything that happened in the Bush administration. This is not good for the country.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, to the majority leader, well done. I think we are going to be able to voice vote a resolution that states the policy of our country and our President very clearly. To the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, great job on the sanctions. I hope the Senator understands why I wanted to put in all options. I hope the sanctions will work. This is a clear statement by the Senate backing up our President that when it comes to Iran having nuclear capabilities, there will be more than sanctions on the table, and the Iranians need to know that. I hope we can end this peacefully for Israel's sake, for our sake, and for the world's sake as we approach beefing up the sanctions with the Banking Committee, with Senator Menendez's and Senator Kirk's leadership, and others, who have done a great job. If you are on the Banking Committee, you did a great job. I don't even know who is on it. The bottom line is I think the sanctions were really well drafted and will enhance the President's hand, so to speak. We cannot leave this debate without making a very simple unequivocal statement that the goal is to get it right. And if sanctions can lead to getting it right, God bless. If the sanctions will not get us to where we want to go, everything is on the table, including the use of military force, because this country--Republicans and Democrats--is not going to allow the Iranian regime to develop nuclear capability that will put the world into darkness. To everybody who negotiated this outcome, thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I wish to echo what my friend from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, has said. I wish to get this done so we can vote and send the appropriate signal. It is not so much we act before Tuesday, even though that is important, but that we let the Iranians and the world know what we mean when we speak. I hope they are watching in Tehran. I don't know if they get C SPAN. They will probably find it odd that Lindsey Graham is now being easy on Iran. Trust me, I am not. Senator Menendez has been a champion, along with Senator Kirk, of creating legislation we could all buy into 100 to 0. We can't agree we should take Sunday off 100 to 0. But what they achieved was remarkable. I understand Senator Reid has been pulled and torn. I appreciate it. I enjoy working with him. He thinks maybe somebody is doing him wrong. We are not. He should ask himself this question: Why would Senator Graham be on the floor concerned about what we say if he genuinely did not believe we are making a mistake? I don't want to embarrass the President. I would say to the President: Keep it up with Iran. I hope sanctions work. And if you need to use military force to protect this Nation, if sanctions fail, I will be your strongest advocate. But a couple of things have been said that need to be corrected. The managers' amendment is not what was in the base bill or we wouldn't need a managers' amendment. Section 102 in the base bill is approximately three paragraphs. Section 102 here is approximately 10 pages. The bottom line for me is that this section was added in the managers' amendment that didn't exist in the base bill: Nothing in this act or this amendment or the amendments made by this act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran or Syria. That wasn't in the base bill. Where the hell did that come from? This is not a declaration of war. But when this sentence is in there, and the new amendment doesn't say one thing about the use of force to control the Iranian behavior--the President's own words are ``all options on the table.'' And the reason I am exercised is we are now producing a product that backs away from where the President has been regarding all options on the table. We end the new managers' package with the statement ``nothing here authorizes the use of force against Iran or Syria.'' It is all about sanctions in the bill, and the only time we mention force is to say we won't do it or we won't authorize it. All I am asking is what Senator Lieberman mentioned. These sanctions are great. I hope they will change Iranian behavior. They haven't yet, and I don't think they ever will, but I am willing to go down this road. All I am asking is when we include in the legislation ideas or concepts that will change Iranian behavior that we include ``all options are on the table'' in the bill. Because this would be the first piece of legislation where that is ominously omitted. To end, the whole concept of what we are trying to do with the declarative statement ``this is not a declaration of war or the use of force against Iran or Syria'' would make the Iranians believe, quite frankly, we are all about sanctions and that is it. I am all for sanctions, but if you are listening, Tehran, I want more on the table to make you change your behavior. This summer is going to be tough for the world. The Iranians talk and enrich. There is nothing credible I have seen to make me believe they are not pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. I hope the talks next Tuesday will change their behavior. I appreciate what Senator Menendez has done, along with his colleagues on the Banking Committee, to give this President more tools, to make them even tougher than they are today. But the worst thing we could do before next Tuesday is to leave any doubt to anybody who is watching this debate that there is nothing more on the table than just sanctions; that on the table--and we hope to God we never have to use it to stop the Iranian nuclear program--is the use of force, if that is required. That is all I want to say. I hope we never get there. I agree with this last statement--I am not asking for a declaration of war against Tehran or Syria--but I will not vote for a document at this critical time in our Nation's history, with the existential threat we are facing from a rogue regime that denies the right of Israel to exist, that has killed over 2,000 Americans in Iraq, that has been a proxy for evil throughout the planet, whose own President doesn't believe the Holocaust existed. And to my friends at APACS, whom I agree with most of the time, if they think this is the right answer, I couldn't disagree with you more. Add one simple line, that in addition to all the fine work of the Banking Committee, and my dear friend Senator Menendez, that we in the Senate recognize what the President has been saying for months--that military force is also an option.

Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator is correct. Here is what President Obama said: All options are on the table when it comes to the Iranian nuclear program. Israel, I have your back. Containment is not an option. I agree with the President. I think he has made the right statements, and I am just trying to reinforce them.

Mr. GRAHAM. I would just close and yield the floor to Senator Menendez. The Senator is right about the resolution. We are not coming up with a new idea; we are just reinforcing an idea put on the table by our own President--we are not going to contain a nuclear-capable Iran as a policy. It is not a declaration of war. It is not authorization of force. It is restating the policy at a time when it may matter.

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, here is my view about that. I think the President would be wise to include the Congress. I am a conservative who thinks the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. I find it odd that our party for all of these years has railed against the War Powers Act until President Obama is in office, and all of a sudden we are great champions of the War Powers Act. But what I would say is that it would be wise for the President to consult with the Congress and for us to be united. And if you do believe in the War Powers Act, he has to, within a period of time, come back to get our approval to continue. I think whatever the President needs to do to defend us against a nuclear-capable Iran is best made by the Commander in Chief consulting with the Congress. But you can't have 535 commanders in chief. Back to the sanctions bill. The problem I have is that it is silent on a concept on which we all agree, and I don't want to create a document before the negotiations Tuesday that doesn't include something beyond sanctions to change the Iranian behavior that we all want to avoid. And this says: It is the sense of the Congress that the goal of compelling Iran to abandon efforts to acquire nuclear weapons capability and other threatening activities can be effectively achieved through--it goes through 10 pages talking about sanctions, and not once does it mention the possibility of military force, and that is what I want to add, that concept. With that, I will yield the floor. I hope we can work this out. To the Senator from New Jersey, I think he is a great guy, and I am sorry we are having this problem. But it is very important to me that we get this part of it right.

Mr. GRAHAM. Senator Corker asked a very good question, and I will answer it directly, as Senator Lieberman did. The resolution is not designed to authorize the use of force where anybody in the State Department administration could say, we have the green light to go into Iran from Congress. That is not what we are intending to do. We are intending to echo a policy statement made by President Obama that the policy of the United States will be--if you are listening in Tehran-- not to contain Iran if they obtain a nuclear capability. I want to lodge an objection to my own resolution by my colleague Rand Paul, who could not be here, so I am going to object on his behalf. He wants to strike two provisions of the resolution, although I don't think we can get there from here. But in response to Senator Corker, if he wanted to add a line into this resolution that it is not an authorization to use force, I will gladly do that so that nobody can mistake that. But here is what Senator Paul suggested to me. What if they get a nuclear weapon. You know, we don't want to contain them. That is our policy. But what if we wake up one day and they explode a bomb out in the desert and they have already got it? What would we do then? Does that mean we would go after their nuclear program or would we try to contain them? It means, from my point of view, we should go after their program. So we have a difference. If the Iranians think they can sneak through and get a nuclear weapon, and then we are going to contain them, it doesn't work that way. They need to know their regime survival is at stake if they go down this road. If by some accident of our intelligence being wrong--if that could be even conceivable, which I think it could be given this closed environment--they need to know we are not going to allow a nuclear-capable Iran, period. But to this resolution not being an authorization to use force, I would say to Senator Menendez that this last statement--which wasn't in the base bill--I don't object to that. This is not a declaration of war. I don't know why someone added Syria. We are not talking about Syria, but there are some people out there who want to limit the ability of the United States sometimes to defend itself. I want to put a sentence in your sanctions bill that all options are on the table, as they have been for months, if not years.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, let me try to answer that. Senator Menendez and a group of us--Senators Lieberman and Casey and Hoeven and myself--did the resolution in question today to echo the President's statement that we are not going to have containment as a policy. There are some people--even Republicans, I might add, some very prominent Republicans--who believe you could contain a nuclear-armed Iran if you told them: If you ever use a nuclear weapon, we would wipe you off the face of the Earth. President Clinton gave a very good answer to that situation. He said that the biggest fear he has is not that the Iranians would put a nuclear weapon on the top of a missile and hit Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv. That is a concern. His biggest fear is that they would share the technology with a terrorist organization. So that is why you can't ever let them get this capability. So the resolution is basically echoing the statement of the President that containment is not an option. And it has 78 cosponsors. Senator Paul has the right to object, and he did. I don't think we can get there from here. I think he has a different view of what we are trying to do--honestly held, a good man, just an honest difference of opinion. Back to the sanctions bill. Senator Menendez did a great job, as he always does on things like this. The reason I found out about this and got so concerned is that section 603 is something that wasn't in the base bill. Again, it says: Nothing in this act or the amendments made by this act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization for use of force against Iran or Syria. One, nothing in here has anything to do with Syria, and I am OK with saying that. I don't want this to be a declaration of war or an authorization to use force; I want it to be a good sanctions bill. But if you don't have the other means available to stop the Iranian programs--as the President has indicated, all options on the table-- that has to be said because we would be leaving a gap in our policy. So to Senator Menendez and Senator Reid, all I am asking is that we insert a provision that basically echoes what the policy of this country is--all options are on the table, not just sanctions. And we will get a lot of votes for this.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the compromise that was outlined by Senator Cantwell. Basically, 6 years ago the Congress of the United States by voice vote reauthorized the Export-Import Bank. If you are in business, like Boeing and GE, and thousands of other companies out there that are making products in the United States and selling them overseas, the idea that the Congress would, by voice vote, reauthorize the bank had to make you believe that this model of doing business would be made available to you. Here we are, later down the road, a lot of concern about the bank, and some people actually want to do away with it. I understand free markets pretty well, and I would love to live in a world where no country interfered in the marketplace at all and the best products would win based on a level playing field. But why do we have the Export-Import Bank? It is about 70 years old. There is a long record here. Products made in America and sold overseas--sometimes because of the volatile nature of the region in question traditional banks won't lend money. What happened is about 70 years ago we created a bank to help us export products, and that bank, the Export-Import Bank, as Senator Cantwell said, makes money, doesn't lose money, and it has been a sound way to get American-made products into the international marketplace. Here is the reality: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain, Brazil, China, and India all have export banks of their own. The G 7 countries we competed against between 2006 and 2010 doubled the amount of ex-im financing available in their countries. This is what American businesses are competing against. Our good friend up North, Canada, is one-tenth our size. The Canadian Ex-Im Bank did $100 billion worth of financing for Canadian-made products last year, compared to $32 billion in support of American manufacturers. The only area of our economy that has been strong lately is exports. So imagine this: America does away with the Export-Import Bank. All of the countries I just described have their banks available to their manufacturers. Boeing makes planes in Washington and in South Carolina. Eight out of ten planes being manufactured in Charleston, SC, by Boeing, the 787s, are sold based on export-import financing, 8 out of 10. That is why they needed a second line of production. They are competing against Airbus. France has three Export-Import Banks. China's Export-Import Bank is larger than those of the United States, Germany, Canada, and Britain combined. It is one thing to do reform; it is another to unilaterally surrender. It is one thing to lead the world; it is another to put the people who make products in America at risk unnecessarily. The legislation in the House did compel the President, the Department of Commerce, and Treasury to try to get these Export-Import Banks wound down over time. If we could do that, great, because I think the American workers and the American companies can compete anywhere in the world on a level playing field. At the end of the day, this is about whether we are going to unilaterally surrender. We are weeks away. Senator Corker has a good amendment, a decent amendment, but it doesn't quite get us to where we need to be at this late hour. One part of this amendment is that you can't make a loan under the Export-Import Bank until the company proves that the other countries in question are not offering loans in that area. That is pretty hard to do when countries such as China are not very transparent. This amendment is billed as good government, and I know his motivations are sound. He is not ideologically against the bank. But at this late hour, it will bring the legislation down. And, quite frankly, the second prong of what he is proposing I think is a real burden to put on American businesses at a time when it is hard enough already to create jobs in America. To those who want to end the bank without other countries doing so, I think you would be doing a great disservice to people in this country who are selling products overseas. In my State alone, you would be destroying the ability of Boeing Company to grow in South Carolina. GE makes gas turbines in Greenville, SC. One-third of those turbines made in Greenville are sold through ex-im financing. If you can get the other parts of the world to do this, count me in. Until we do it together, I am going to allow this bank to stay in business because it makes money, it doesn't lose money. There is a difference between leading the world and putting your companies at risk in a world based on reality, and the reality is that export-import financing by our competitive nations is growing, it is not being reduced. This bill that passed the House was 330 votes. We live in a time in Congress where you can hardly declare Sunday as a holiday, but 330 Members of the House voted to extend this bank for 3 years with reforms. Count me in the reform camp. Some people say this bank has kind of gotten out of its lane and is making loans that are not traditionally export-import loans. I agree with that. Some say the bank is not transparent enough. I agree with that. The bottom line is it has been reformed; not as much as some would wish, but it definitely has been reformed. Sixty-two percent of the Republican Conference in the House voted to reauthorize this, so I want to acknowledge Representative Cantor, Representative Hoyer, Tim Scott, and my delegation, who have tried to bring about reform. At the end of the day, the Senate now is receiving a product that went through the House, a lot of giving and taking. They produced a compromise, as Senator Cantwell said, that would be different than I would have written, but it truly is reform. It allows a 3-year extension of the bank at $140 billion with reforms that are, quite frankly, I think common sense, and 62 percent of the House Republicans supported this. The tea party was split. At the end of the day we have a decision to make as a Senate: Are we going to allow this bank to fail, or are we going to allow the bank to stay in business under a new way of doing business? I think it would be a travesty and a detrimental event to the economy of this country if this bank were to go out of business and the banks of everybody we compete with are doubling in size. If you want to grow the footprint in America of selling products made in America overseas, this bank has a niche. Where you cannot find traditional financing, this bank allows American products to be sold, and I think it is a very sound business practice. The bank is making money. The bank has been around for 70 years and there are no subprime mortgages here. This is about selling American products to a willing buyer overseas where you can't find traditional financing. Our friends in China--sometimes they are not our friends; they manipulate their currency, they steal intellectual property--their bank is going like gangbusters. The last thing I am going to do with my vote is take American companies that are struggling to make it, creating jobs in America through selling products overseas, and put them at a disadvantage against the Chinese or any other country that is doing business. We will wind down these things together or we will stay in business to allow those in America to make products and sell them overseas. From a South Carolina perspective, this is a very big deal. It was a big deal to get Boeing to come to South Carolina. This is a request by Boeing, and many other small businesses such as Mount Vernon Mills, to keep the program around. I will end where I started. Six years ago, those people in the manufacturing community had the bank reauthorized by voice vote. They set up a business model assuming the bank was going to be around, because nobody even objected to it enough to get a rollcall. Six years later, we can't make wild, radical changes. We have made reforms. But the worst thing we can do is to have told the community 6 years ago by voice vote this bank will be in place and 6 years later do away with it when no one else is doing away with their banks. That makes no sense to me. That is not good government. That, to me, is unilateral surrender. I didn't want to unilaterally disarm when we were competing against the Soviets in the Cold War, and I sure as heck don't want to unilaterally disarm in a world economy very much interconnected. These amendments, most of them, are designed to wind down the bank. They are ideologically driven. Senator Corker is trying to make it better, but there is a component of his amendment that I think would make it very difficult for our companies to get a loan. At the end of the day, we need to vote these amendments down and pass the House product. To the Members of the House, Republicans and Democrats, you worked this out among yourselves in a way that I think the Senate should embrace and endorse. And to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, we are allowing votes on an important piece of legislation. The Senate is operating in the best traditions of the Senate; people have their say, people get to vote. Here is my say: Bring your amendments to the floor. I respect your ideological position. I respect the idea of the free markets and where we want to go. But I am asking my colleagues not to put American businesses at risk at a time when our economy is on its knees. Do not destroy this bank at a time when competitor nations are doubling the size of theirs. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will gladly yield and let Senator Corker go ahead of me--I understand the Senator has an amendment to offer-- with the understanding I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes after he is done.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding but, more importantly, for his leadership on the subject that brings us all to the floor. The National Labor Relations Board has gotten a lot of attention lately and for reasons I don't think are too helpful to the cause. Obviously, being from South Carolina, their decision to entertain a complaint against the Boeing Company for moving to South Carolina, a complaint filed by the machinists union that sat on their desk for 1 year and then finally was brought forward by the NLRB to potentially close down the South Carolina site and move the facility back to Washington, thank God, is behind us now. But at the end of the day, this organization, the National Labor Relations Board, seems to be hell bent on changing processes across the board more for political reason than a substantive reason. What brings us here today is the rulemaking proposal to change the time for union elections for employees to vote on whether they want to be part of a union. It does away with the preelection consultation, the idea of the employer and the people wanting to represent the employees sitting down and seeing if they can work out a proposal or a compromise; it shortens the election time to as little as 10 days. So if you are in the company in question, you have a 10-day period before the election. The current mean average is 38 days. I would argue this is being done not to make things more efficient but to change outcomes. Quite frankly, the outcome being desired is to make the union position stronger, not to make the system more efficient. That is what happens. I expect a Republican President to nominate people to a board such as the NLRB with a business background. I expect a Democratic President to nominate people to the NLRB and like boards with maybe a more union background. But I expect the Board not to take the agency and turn it into a political organization and try to create by rulemaking what we can't create by legislating. That is what brings us here today. The whole complaint filed by the machinists union in Washington, taking that complaint up that the move to South Carolina was somehow in retaliation against the union in Washington when no one lost their job in the State of Washington and no one's pay was reduced I think was taking the NLRB into an area it has never gone before. This is just a continuation of that pattern and this is not good because the unelected aspect of our government, the NLRB and similar agencies, has a lot of sway over our economy. At a time when we are trying to make sure we create jobs in America and make it easier for people to locate their companies here, proposals such as this are undercutting what we need to be doing. This is an unprecedented move. This kind of breathtaking change in the rules has only happened, I think, two or three times, and this was proposed as Mr. Becker was on the way out. Congress, under the Administrative Review Act, has an opportunity to stop this before it is too late. What this is being called on our side is sort of an ambush election. The point we are trying to make is that by changing this rule to a 10-day period and doing away with preelection negotiations basically creates an environment where people are having to cast votes and not understanding who is going to be representing them or the nature of their decision. Why do we want to shorten an election? Why do we want to do away with the ability to negotiate between the employer and people who want to represent the employees? I don't see this is addressing a problem that exists. I think this is more motivated by getting at an outcome rather than reforming a process. I hope some of our Democratic colleagues will say this is excessive and unnecessary. If the Congress doesn't stand in the way between the American people and unelected bureaucrats, who will? This is your chance as a Member of Congress to do something about the unelected side of government that is growing more powerful by the day. We have a chance here to say no to a rule that makes no sense, that is going to skew the playing field and, quite frankly, I think represents the worst of special interest politics. I hope Senators will take an opportunity to exercise their authority as a Member of Congress and say: Whoa. Time out. We don't need to go down this road. Let's let people understand who will be representing them, let the people who are going to vote in an election regarding unionization of the workplace to have a meaningful understanding of what they are about to vote on. There is no reason to shorten the process to 10 days. I doubt most of us would like our elections to be shortened to 10 days. This is not about reforming an election process that is broken. It is about trying to change the outcome and skew it to the benefit of one side versus the other. Again, the rulemaking is not necessary. This is a chance for a Member of Congress to stand and say no to the unelected side of government at a time when somebody needs to say no to them. I just hope and pray we can get some bipartisan support for this because Senator Enzi has done a very good job of trying to explain to the Senate and to our conference as a whole about what awaits the American workforce if this rule is changed, why it is unnecessary. It is not about reforming a broken process; it is trying to get an outcome where one side benefits versus the other. I just hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will look at this as an opportunity for Congress to speak against the excessive rulemaking and what I think is an abuse of a process. With that, I yield, and I appreciate very much the leadership of Senator Enzi.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing COL Richard ``Rich'' C. Gross on the occasion of his promotion to brigadier general in the U.S. Army. This is a tremendous honor, for which he should be especially proud. A devoted patriot, Rich has dedicated the past 27 years to serving our Armed Forces and protecting our Nation. After graduating from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, he was commissioned in the U.S. Army as a second lieutenant in the Infantry. Rich's first assignment took him to the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, NC, where he served in numerous leadership positions. While there, he was accepted into the Army's Funded Legal Education Program. In 1993, he graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law and entered the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's, JAG, Corps. He later earned a master's degree in strategic studies from the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, PA. As a JAG, Rich served in numerous positions across the world. He began serving in the 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, KY. After assignments at the U.S. Army Litigation Division in Arlington, VA, and the 1st Special Operational Detachment--Delta, Fort Bragg, he was assigned to the V Corps, Heidelberg, Germany, as the deputy staff judge advocate, SJA. Most recently, he served as the SJA for U.S. Central Command, USCENTCOM, at MacDill AFB, Tampa, FL. I had the opportunity to serve with Rich in Kabul, Afghanistan, and was able to see firsthand his strong work ethic, good character, and integrity. As the chief legal advisor for the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, and SJA for U.S. Forces--Afghanistan, USFOR A, Rich is an invaluable asset to our Armed Forces and, as a leader, has set an example for other service men to follow. Rich has received numerous awards, including the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Meritorious Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, and the Non-Article 5 NATO Medal. He is a recipient of the U.S. Army Ranger Tab, Master Parachutist Badge, Air Assault Badge, and Expert Infantryman Badge. I ask the Senate join me in congratulating Richard C. Gross on his promotion to Army, brigadier general. We thank him for his lifelong dedication to our Armed Forces and Nation. I wish Rich the very best in his future endeavors.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I will be glad to discuss that. I have enjoyed the opportunity to create legislation that would allow States to opt out of Medicaid's expansion under this bill. About 30 percent of the people in South Carolina will be eligible for Medicaid by 2014 when this law is fully implemented. It is the second largest expense in South Carolina. With the matching requirement, we get three Federal dollars for every State dollar you put on the table dealing with Medicaid. That sounds like a good deal until Medicaid explodes in costs and becomes the No. 1 driver of the budget in South Carolina, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Arizona. Under this bill, the problem we have today with Medicaid becomes Medicaid on steroids. I am confident that there are plenty of Democrats who have Governors who are Democrats who will say: Wait a minute, before you expand Medicaid and put additional burden on my State's budget, see if we can find more creative ways of dealing with it and give people the ability to opt out of that. That would be good policy. I want to comment about this. One rule of thumb is that any bill passed on Christmas Eve on a party-line vote is probably no good to the country. And that is what happened. As Senator McCain would say, this was a party-line vote, 60 to 40, on something dealing with one-sixth of the economy. This was supposed to happen on C SPAN. President Obama said: I am coming and we are going to change the way Washington works. If I had to offer exhibit A of what is wrong with Washington, it would be the ObamaCare process. Everything that people hate about Washington resulted in this bill being passed. There was absolutely no bipartisanship; there were behind-closed-door negotiations, beating people over the head to get their support; there was buying votes based on special interest deals for their States. That is not exactly what the American people had in mind. Is it any surprise that something that came out of that process is going over like a lead balloon? One of the problems with health care is getting doctors to take Medicare and Medicaid patients. What did we do with Medicare? We took $500 billion out of a system that is $33 trillion underfunded to help the uninsured. We have an uninsured problem, but we have a Medicare problem that will be an absolute nightmare. What I wanted to do on malpractice is to tell a doctor: If you will take a Medicare or Medicaid patient, doing the country a service, and you get sued, we will go to arbitration--require arbitration--and let the panel render their judgment. And if you want to go to court, you can. That is fair. I want people to have their chance to litigate differences on alleged malpractice. I also want doctors to feel there is an incentive to serve Medicare and Medicaid patients. What was promised in this bill--the remedies to our health care system--none of them have come true. What you see 2 years later are our worst fears being realized at a faster pace. The President promised: If you like your health care, you will be able to keep it. What is going on in this country is that employers are dropping health care for their employees because it is cheaper to pay the fine. What is happening in this country is that the idea of being able to expand Medicaid without bankrupting the budgets of this country at the State level, when you look at the consequences, is a nightmare in the making. We were promised this bill would reduce the deficit. Well, to me, health care includes doctors, and in the bill itself we never dealt with the problem that doctors face of having their budgets, their reimbursements cut. That was not even addressed in ObamaCare. That is a couple hundred billion dollar liability. So the idea this thing has been paid for, as promised, no longer exists. It is adding to the deficit. It was projected to be $900 billion in cost; now it is about $1.7 trillion. So the basic promises around what this bill would do for our budget, what it would do for our choices in health care, have not come true. I am here to say to our Democratic friends, fix this before it is too late. You will find people on our side willing to meet you in the middle when it comes to reforming health care because it needs to be reformed. But the model you have created--centralized health care--that is going to damage State budgets beyond belief, that will drive private sector insurance out of the market, and it is going to have a budget consequence on top of what we already have is not the right model. I say to my colleagues here today, I will work with you to do two things: Educate the public about what awaits us if we don't change this bill quickly, and work with our Democratic friends to find a better alternative. I think that is what America wants. When 67 percent of the people, 2 years later, feel this is not the way to go, responsible leadership would say let's alter course. The Supreme Court may strike down the mandate. They may say Medicaid expansion is a violation of the tenth amendment. I hope they do. But I can say one thing with certainty: Because nine judges, five of whom say it is legal to do something, doesn't make it smart to do something. What is smart is to fix health care in a sustainable way. And what is smart is for Republicans and Democrats to work together in a transparent, open fashion. We haven't done anything smart about health care yet, and I hope that changes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. They told me to come at 11:10 is all I know.

Mr. GRAHAM. Would the President let me know when 10 minutes has passed?

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is a defining moment for the Senate in a couple of ways. The Democratic Senators have an alternative to the House-passed JOBS bill that will get a vote on their alternative. That is good. I believe the House-passed JOBS bill had overwhelming bipartisan support. It is a good document. I will support that version over my Senate Democratic colleagues. But let me tell you what our Senate Democratic colleagues have done that I think is very constructive. Ex-Im Bank is trying to be made part of the JOBS bill in the Senate. This Export-Import Bank, what does this mean? This is a financing ability by American companies that are selling overseas in volatile or emerging markets. It is a financing system that has been available since 1934. If you are going to try to sell a product made in America to a place in the world where traditional banking is hard to obtain, you can go to the Ex-Im Bank and they will give a letter of credit, they will sometimes give a direct loan to people who want to buy American products. The bank itself made $3.5 billion for the taxpayer I think since 2005 and 2006. Here is the reality: Every country we compete with has their version of Ex-Im Bank. We financed $32 billion worth of American-made products sold overseas through our Ex-Im system last year. Canada, one-tenth our size, financed $100 billion. France has three Ex-Im Banks. China has more Ex-Im activity than the United States, France, and Germany combined. Every country American manufacturing competes with that produces products has their version of Ex-Im Bank. At the end of May, our Ex-Im Bank's authorization runs out. Our loan limits run out a few weeks earlier. This would be devastating. Small companies throughout this country depend on the Ex-Im Bank in order to sell American-made products overseas. Let me give you one good example that has been the topic of conversation. Boeing Aircraft makes airplanes in America, the 787 Dreamliner. It was voted the best new airplane in a long time here recently, something that Boeing is proud of. They make it in Washington and now in South Carolina. The first airplane to be made in South Carolina will roll out in about a month from now. The facility is under budget and ahead of schedule, and we are proud of that airplane. Eight out of the 10 airplanes being made in South Carolina in the first year were Ex-Im financed. There was a deal between Boeing and Air India where a letter of credit was issued by Ex-Im Bank to allow traditional financing to occur, and Boeing was able to sell a big order of American-made jets to Air India. That is just one example. GE makes gas turbines to generate power for emerging areas such as Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East, Africa. All these distressed areas are going to grow and they are going to need power. One-third of the sales coming out of Greenville, SC, for the gas turbines made in America and creating American jobs goes through Ex-Im financing. Here is the issue. If America allows our Ex-Im financing system to go away in May, if that is the will of the Congress, then you have destroyed the ability of many companies in this country to grow their business. As the economy has been weak and stagnant here at home, here is the good news: In terms of exports, we have increased our export sales 20 percent. Imagine an America that could not continue to increase export sales. Imagine a Boeing manufacturer that could never sell an American-made airplane in a volatile or emerging market because China is now making airplanes and Airbus has access to three or four Ex-Im Banks. It would be an ill-conceived idea. This program has been around a long time. It has helped create thousands of jobs in the United States. Everybody we compete with has a more aggressive form of Ex-Im financing than we do. To my colleagues who want to eliminate this, I don't understand how American business could ever successfully compete in these emerging markets if we unilaterally disarm. To my Democratic colleagues, thank you for bringing up Ex-Im Bank. To our majority leader, Senator Reid, this is a good idea. What is a bad idea is to not let anybody on the Republican side offer one amendment to this bill. Some of the ideas to reform Ex-Im Bank I would agree to. I think any organization, any entity, can be made better. I want to be able to get back to being in a body called the United States Senate, where people with different ideas on important topics can actually vote. To my colleagues on this side, I may vigorously oppose some of you who decide the Export-Import Bank should go away because I think that would be the worst thing you could do for the American economy, particularly export jobs being created in this country, and it would be unilaterally surrendering in the world marketplace. Whether you like it or not, other countries are Export-Import Bank on steroids. If we just get out of this business, companies like Boeing will be unable to sell their airplanes, and you will shut down facilities such as those in South Carolina--not a very good idea. At the end of the day, you do have a right to have your say, and we will have the debate and I am looking forward to the debate about what we should or should not do. But under the process we have now, not one amendment can be offered on our side. We have to do better. We had a transportation bill pass with 74 votes. We have had a good exchange here lately with judges. I am very proud of what our minority and majority leader worked out on judges. I want to get the Senate back to being the Senate. I think Ex-Im reauthorization should be an integral part of any jobs bill. I want to put it in the Senate bill. I will gladly vote for it. There are a bunch of Republicans over here who will support extension of Ex-Im financing with reforms, but none of us want to be put in a situation where our colleagues cannot have a say where they disagree with us or that we cannot reform the bill. That is not the way to go. I hope that between now and 4 o'clock, the minority leader and the majority leader can find a way to bring up the JOBS bill, allowing it to be amended in an appropriate way and taking votes some of us don't like, but it is part of democracy--have a robust debate on a jobs package that could not come at a better time, and include in that debate Ex-Im reauthorization at a time when America needs more jobs here at home. The economy here at home is weak. The one good thing about what is happening here at home is that our export sales have gone up. The way to create export jobs in America is to allow American businesses to compete on a level playing field throughout the world. I wish the world were different. I wish we had completely free markets. Every American business could do fine in that world, but that is not the way it is. The Ex-Im Bank doesn't cost the taxpayers one dime. It makes money for the Treasury, and it allows American companies to make money. It allows American businesses to be competitive. I am urging the two leaders of the Senate to allow a jobs bill to come forward, let us have our say, have our differences, let's vote, let's amend, and let's create jobs in America. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I wish to add my gratitude and recognition of Ambassador Patterson and her whole team--the State Department team on the ground. They did a very good job making the case to the Egyptian Government. But we have to all realize Egypt is in transition. They have just had their elections for the lower house, the Parliament. The upper house has not been seated yet, and they have not elected a President. They have gone from a dictatorship to an emerging democracy, and this case comes along, the NGO prosecutions. I think both of us--our entire delegation--think this is offensive. The IRI, the NDI are Republican-Democratic organizations funded by the government and the private sector that try to help emerging democracies all over the world. They have been in every country hotspot you can name--after the collapse of the Soviet Union--doing great work. So the accusations were the people involved in these organizations--and Senator McCain is the head of IRI--were involved in spying and espionage, and I wanted to take the floor to say I found the accusations offensive and without merit. The Egyptian coworkers, Egyptian citizens who were working with the IRI and NDI, are still in custody in Egypt, facing criminal prosecutions for helping these fine organizations, and we will not take our eye off of that and we will keep pushing to make sure we get the right answer. But how did this end? We know how it started. I think it was a political effort to try to justify Mubarak-era law that was used to oppress and keep out of the country people who were helping to bring about change. One of the bright spots of this engagement was that the army--and General Tantawi was as helpful as he could be, given the constraints of the army in this new government formation. But when we engaged the Muslim Brotherhood, the Freedom and Justice Party, the largest bloc in Parliament, Senator McCain, in his first engagement, the first thing he said to the representative was this NGO situation and how damaging it was to Egypt-American relationships, how unfair it was, how out of bounds it was in terms of the law. The response was from this group that we find the NGO law unacceptable, unjust, and we are wanting to change it. Once that statement was made publicly, it allowed this momentum to withdraw or lift the administrative travel ban. The cases may still go forward, but our people are coming home. I think the reason this happened is because of the collaboration between the State Department, the delegation, every aspect of the American Government, and the people on the ground in Egypt I think understood the value of the United States-Egyptian relationship, and the judicial system finally made a wise decision. To those left behind, we are certainly standing with you, and you will not be forgotten. But this could have ended the United States-Egyptian relationship. Senator McCain and Senator Hoeven, let me ask a question to you both. If this had not ended well, if they had insisted on prosecuting and having the American citizens questioned appear in cages before an Egyptian court based on an outlandish acquisition, what kind of reaction would we have had in the United States and what damage would it have done to United States-Egyptian relationships, in your opinion?

Mr. GRAHAM. And I will turn it back over to Senator McCain. I can tell you that very few people in Egypt, almost no one in Egypt realized somebody from North Dakota was being held. You were on message. You were very effective. I hope Staci and her family appreciate it, and I know they do. But for everybody--Sam, the NDI workers, the whole gang--we are proud of what they do. Senator Blumenthal is here, and I want people to know this is a bipartisan delegation. We had kind of a dinner meeting, when things were not going so well, about the idea of bringing our American citizens down to Egyptian court to be put at risk securitywise and maybe to be put behind cages--which would have destroyed the relationship. I think Senator Blumenthal made it crystal clear that was not a good idea. And thank God it didn't happen. With that, I yield back to Senator McCain.

Mr. GRAHAM. I think this is a very good topic to be talking about-- the future--because this is an episode that could have destroyed the relationship before it had a chance to mature. What am I concerned about? I am still concerned about the development in Egypt. The Constitution will be written here in the coming months, by the summer. I want to make sure America's voice is heard about who we are. We hope that the Egyptian people embrace tolerance; that the Coptic Christians are going to be welcomed as they have been for centuries in Egypt; that religious minorities will be protected; that women will not be taken back into the darkness; that the Constitution will reflect an Islamic nation that understands the concepts of tolerance and free enterprise. The Muslim Brotherhood will be the leading organization politically. It is up to them to create an environment where the world feels welcome. It is up to them to create an economy, working with their coalition partners. We will be watching. It is not what you say in politics, it is what you do. Apply that to all of us here. I think we are failing our people back in the United States by talking way too much and doing too little. Between now and the summer can really be outcome-determinative for decades in Egypt. I am urging the Egyptian political leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood included, to write a constitution and create an environment where people believe they can come and visit Egypt and do business. Senator McCain is dead-on. There is a lot of money to be made interacting with the Egyptian people, and they are a proud people and smart people, and I want to get our businesses on the ground. I want to help the Egyptian economy develop through the private sector, not just the public. I am the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, working with Senator Leahy, the chairman. We will be continuing to provide economic assistance, but the end game is to create a functioning society we can do business with where we can create jobs in America. The main thing to do in the short term is maintain the military relationship. The reason Egypt did not become Syria when people were rising against the autocratic regime is because the Army stood by the people. The relationship we have had with the Egyptian military over 30 years really paid dividends. Egyptian officers coming to American military academies and schools has been invaluable. As we go forward, maintain that relationship between us and the Egyptian Army, honor the treaty with Israel, make sure you write a constitution worthy of a bright future in Egypt, and to all the political leaders in Egypt: The world is watching, the Arab world is watching, and if you have a narrow agenda, if you have an exclusive agenda, you will be doing your country a disservice. We will be a willing partner but not under any and all circumstances. Maybe we have learned our lesson--that you cannot have partnerships without basic principles. We look forward to working with the Egyptian Parliament and people. They have a chance to change the course of history in the Arab world and the Mideast. Don't lose the opportunity.

Mr. GRAHAM. Not only did we meet with people who came back to Libya from the University of Alabama--if there had been anybody from North Dakota, I would have known about it, I assure you. We met a person who was detained at Gitmo--you talk about a small world and how the world changes--someone detained at Guantanamo Bay because they had been involved with some very unsavory characters but who did not adopt the al-Qaida agenda but will be a key player between the United States and Libya. I want to mention--I think my colleagues will verify this--you have been nice to Senator McCain and myself, but let me tell you, having the three Senators there, as Senator Blumenthal said, echoing public opinion in America--we were not negotiators, we were trying to tell people the way it was here at home--we could not have done it without the three of you saying, here is the way it is. But let me say, when Senator McCain turned to the former Guantanamo Bay detainee and said: You know, I have been in prison, too, and about forgiveness and about starting over and starting a relationship in Vietnam--Senator McCain and Senator Kerry did that--and about understanding that the future is what we want it to be, I thought it was a very moving moment. I think the interaction between the two individuals gave me a sense that there is hope out there. I want to acknowledge that was an unusual moment, when you meet someone who had been in Guantanamo Bay, who is now one of the future leaders of Libya, and have a Senator from the U.S. Senate who served his country and was a prisoner of war--that was an incredible exchange. I hope something good comes from it.

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield for just 1 second?