Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Arizona and all of my colleagues working on what is a very difficult subject matter. When 25 to 1 is the outcome, that is pretty good. I like Senator Reid. This goes back to the White House. This is President Obama's team. This is not Harry Reid. This is not the Senate holding up this bill, it is the White House holding up this bill. They have an irrational view of what we need to be doing with detainees. They have lost the argument--and I tried to help--to close Guantanamo Bay. It is not going to close. We are not going to move those prisoners inside the United States. The Congress has said no. The American people have said no. The reason they lost that argument is after working with the White House for about a year and a half to try to find a national security centric detainee policy that would assure the American people we are not going to let these people roam around the world and treat them as common criminals, they could never pull the trigger on the hard stuff. We are here because the White House cannot tell the ACLU no. There are 48 people at Guantanamo Bay being held under the law of war, who will never see a courtroom, military or civilian courtroom, and that is part of military law. You don't have to let an enemy prisoner go. Most enemy prisoners are never prosecuted. They are held at Guantanamo Bay under the law of war. An Executive order issued by the Obama administration gives them an annual review. We have been trying to work with the Obama administration to deal with every class of detainee we may run into in this war that will go well beyond my lifetime. The reason Mr. Brennan objects is because there was a decision made by the Congress to say if a detainee is captured and interrogated by the high-value interrogation team--which I like, which is an interagency combination of the CIA, FBI, military, and other law enforcement agencies to make sure we get the best intelligence possible, that we create a presumption for military custody. The reason we are doing that is because the Obama administration has been hell bent on criminalizing this war. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, had charges against him in military commissions during the Bush administration, and he was ready to go to trial, literally ready to plead guilty. The Obama administration withdrew those charges and was going to put him in New York City, giving Khalid Shaikh Mohammed the same constitutional rights as an American citizen, then take that show on the road from Guantanamo Bay and have a trial in the heart of New York City that would cost $300 million alone in security. That blew up in their face. They don't get it. Most Americans don't see these people as some guy who stole a car or robbed a liquor store. Most Americans see detainees who were captured on the battlefield as a genuine threat to this country. I applaud the Obama administration for taking the fight to the terrorists and going after bin Laden, for using Predator drones on the battlefield throughout Pakistan and Afghanistan. What I have fought with them over is we have no way of capturing someone and acquiring good intelligence because you have locked down the system. This detainee legislation we have before the Senate will allow a way to go forward. What happens if you capture someone tomorrow? Where do we put them? What jail do we have, as a nation, to put a captured terrorist in? We don't have a jail because they will not use Guantanamo Bay. They captured a terrorist and put him on a ship for 60 days. The Navy is not in the detention business. We don't build ships to make them jails. We build ships to fight wars. This aversion to using Guantanamo Bay is going to bite us as a nation. This legislation allows us to move forward. If you capture someone, you can gather good intelligence. There is a presumption that they will be held as an enemy combatant, but there is a waiver provision. What I don't want to do is read rights to everybody we capture in the United States as part of a terrorist organization's plot. We are not fighting a crime, we are fighting a war. Under the rules of war, you can hold an enemy combatant and interrogate them as long as necessary to find out what the enemy is up to. That is what this legislation does. To my colleagues, you have written a very balanced approach. This idea of never using Guantanamo Bay again is dangerous. The idea that the CIA cannot interrogate enemy prisoners as a policy is dangerous. By Executive order the President of the United States, President Obama, within a week of taking office, took off the table an enhanced interrogation technique under the Detainee Treatment Act that was classified, that was not waterboarding within our values, but techniques available to our intelligence community, which Senator Chambliss oversees, that would allow them over time to acquire good intelligence. One of the reasons we killed bin Laden is because of the intelligence picture we acquired over 10 years. This President, within a week, said by Executive order the only interrogation tool available to the United States of America is the Army Field Manual, which is online. You can read it yourself.

Mr. GRAHAM. Not only are most Americans upset about that but they worry about what comes down the road. That is what I am worried about. The Senate legislation is trying to create a pathway forward for the future. What do you do with these people we have in Guantanamo Bay who may never go on trial? What do you do with these people at Guantanamo Bay who come from countries where, if you return them to that country, they would be back in the fight by the end of the day?

Mr. GRAHAM. We have a bipartisan proposal that will allow us as a nation to make rational decisions about detention, and the White House is holding it up. There are provisions in this bill that affect the day-to-day lives of the men and women in our military. The White House is saying detainee policy driven by the ACLU is more important to them than a bill that would allow the CIA the authorization they need to fight this war that would provide wounded warriors assistance at a time when wounded warriors need it the most. You talk about a perverse view of things, you talk about having it wrong in terms of what is most important, allowing the detainee issue to deny the CIA the authorization they need to protect us all is dangerous. To put the needs of the men and women in uniform in terms of their health care, their pay, their ability to take care of their families secondary to detainee policies that make no sense and is driven by the far left of this country is what this debate is about. To the White House, we are not going to change this bill.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the achievements of one of South Carolina's most respected citizens. Greenville, SC, is the home of Michelin's North American headquarters. One of the largest tire manufacturers in the world, Michelin has had a presence in the state for over thirty years and currently employs nearly 8,000 South Carolinians. Michelin is known for its innovation and the quality of its products. It is also one of the finest corporate citizens we have in South Carolina. Dick Wilkerson, the current chairman and president of Michelin North America, will retire at the end of 2011 after 31 years with the company, the last 3-plus years in his current role. Upon his retirement, he will become chairman emeritus of Michelin North America, in recognition of his remarkable career and strong and effective leadership during a very difficult economic time. Under Dick's leadership, Michelin became the largest tire maker in North America by sales and has remained the most profitable tire maker in North America for 7 consecutive years. That is quite an achievement given the tough economic circumstances. Wilkerson also led the creation of major community programs, including Michelin Development Upstate South Carolina and Michelin Challenge Education. Michelin Development provides low interest loans and access to our considerable business expertise to create quality sustainable jobs and promote economic growth. To date, investments in Upstate South Carolina total more than $2 million, 33 loans have been supported, and more than 750 potential jobs have been created inspiring new economic growth. Michelin Challenge Education focuses on the support of public elementary schools located in close proximity to major Michelin facilities. By forming a true partnership between each facility and its adopted school, Michelin provides support to meet the specific needs of each school. Several of these include low-income schools receiving Federal title I funds. The program formalizes an opportunity for Michelin's nearly 8,000 South Carolina employees to make a personal contribution to the improvement of public education through hands-on involvement. Michelin employees serve as mentors, tutors and volunteers. Dick currently serves as chairman of the South Carolina State Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. He also serves on the Clemson University President's Advisory Board and the University of South Carolina National Advisory Council. Nationally, he serves on the board of the Rubber Manufacturers Association and Board of Directors of the Yellowstone Park Foundation. He is active in the Greenville, SC community, serving as chairman- elect of the United Way of Greenville County Board of Trustees. Previously, Dick served as chair of the United Way of Greenville County fundraising campaign. He has served on the boards of the Greenville Urban League, the chamber of commerce, the University Center, and the Greenville Symphony. Dick has been a true leader in the State's business community. Michelin has turned in strong financial results, which reflects their strong commitment to their shareholders. Beyond that, is the company's commitment to its employees and the fact that Michelin is a true partner with the communities where their employees live and operate manufacturing facilities. Michelin is a superb example of how a good corporate citizen behaves. We are proud of the fact that Michelin calls South Carolina ``home.'' Dick, congratulations to you on your 31 years with Michelin. Thank you for your past contributions to South Carolina, and I look forward to continuing our work together to make South Carolina a great place to live and work.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I rise in support of moving forward on this legislation. I wish I could fix the Senate. It is not functioning the way any of us wishes--plenty of blame to go around. The Congress's approval rating is at 15 percent. But here is some good news. There is a piece of legislation before us that, if we can ever get a vote on the legislation, would have overwhelming bipartisan support that actually would matter to the average, every-day person. When you look through your Congress, you have got to say: What is it about those folks up there? Why can't they do the things that all of us know need to be done? There is a difference of opinion about how to deal with China. This is a complicated issue. But the one thing no one is telling me on the other side: Lindsey, they are not manipulating their currency. I think as the American Taxpayers Union--great organization; I am in pretty good standing with them. I disagree with them on how to proceed against China in this particular instance. I think they said in their own letter: We agree, China manipulates their currency. Well, if they do manipulate their currency, what does it matter? It matters a lot if you are an American business man or woman trying to compete in the world marketplace. As Senator Schumer said, the Chinese manipulate the value of their currency--6.3 yuan to the dollar; it used to be 8-point something. What does that mean? That means if a product produced in China is sold in the world marketplace and you are in business in South Carolina, Alabama, or New York, competing with that Chinese company, the value of their money builds a discount of 30 to 40 percent. You are going to have a very hard time winning in the marketplace, not because you do not work hard, not because your employees are inferior, simply because the Chinese Government is doing things with their currency we do not do. We have a Federal Reserve. Some of their policies I do not agree with. But to suggest that our Federal Reserve system manipulates our currency to create a trade advantage is ridiculous. If we are doing it for that purpose, everybody should be fired, because we have a $273 billion trade deficit. Every country has a right to set monetary policy. That is not the issue. If you disagree with the way we are doing monetary policy in the United States, I think you have a valid claim. This is about a country manipulating its currency for an advantage in the export market. The Chinese manipulation of the yuan has cost this country at least 2 million jobs--41,000 in South Carolina--and it is an unfair trade practice in another name. If this were an island nation somewhere, none of us would care. But this is the second or third largest economy in the world, and all of us should care. The people who are opposing this legislation today are probably doing business in China and they are afraid to offend the Chinese. I have some manufacturing in my State that has a big footprint in China. They are nervous about this bill. I have most people in my State dying for me to get them some relief so they can stay in business. But here is a warning: It will come--this movie will come to a neighborhood near you soon. In 2016, the Chinese are going to start producing, in large numbers, commercial aircraft. It will be difficult for American aircraft companies to compete with China if the aircraft is 30 percent discounted because of currency manipulation. One day they will be producing cars, not to be sold in China but throughout the world. If you are in a high-tech industry, what has happened to the textile industry and other elements of our country such as steel is coming toward you. All we ask of China is build cars, build airplanes, but sell their products based on trade practices that are accepted throughout the world. Do not manipulate your currency to create a discount on products made in your country at our expense. Since 2004, I have been dealing with this. We started with a sense of the Senate because everybody said this is delicate. I buy into that to a point. So sense of the Senate, we all agreed with 100 votes: You manipulate your currency. Please stop. In 2005, after they did not stop, we introduced legislation, got 67 votes to proceed forward with a 27.5 tariff. We stopped our bill because we hoped things would change. Guess what. The yuan has appreciated about 31 percent since we have been doing this exercise, but not nearly enough. There is a restriction on the yuan trading. It cannot float more than 0.5 percent a day. It is tied to the dollar. It is still crushing our manufacturing community unfairly. So from 2004 to now, I have been reasonable. I have sent message amendments, I have taken votes where I won overwhelmingly, and backed off. I have had it. Enough is enough. I am sorry the amendment process around this place is so screwed up. It is. There was an effort to get some amendments up. Not as much as people on our side would like. I hate the idea of filling up the tree and becoming the House. But this is not about Senate procedure for me. I try to be a team player where I can be because I do believe Senator McConnell is doing a very good job. Senator Reid has got his own agenda. It is not about Harry Reid. It is not about Mitch McConnell. It is not about some rule of the Senate. It is about people in my State who are going to lose their job if we do not do something. I know what I need to be doing as a Senator here. The institution I need to be protecting is the American workforce which is having its clock cleaned by a Communist dictatorship that cheats. They do not outwork us. They do not outperform us. They steal our intellectual property. They manipulate their currency. They subsidize their industries. A few years ago they dumped steel all over the world--in the American marketplace, in particular--produced in China below cost, and the Bush administration pushed back with a countervailing duty claim. I want to do business with China. The Chinese people are good. Their government is bad. They are mercantilists. They look at every transaction with an eye of what is best for us in the short term. They do not play by the rules. Since they have been in the WTO, their trade deficit has almost quadrupled. So enough is enough for Lindsey Graham. We are going to have a chance, after 7 years, of getting a vote that will matter to the American people. I am sorry we are mad at each other all the time about everything. I am tired of being mad about the Senate not working well. I am going to set aside my displeasure for the process and do something I think will help the people I represent. I am going to vote to move forward in an imperfect procedural environment, knowing that if we can ever get a vote, it will be the best thing that could happen to the American manufacturing community. It will be a shot across China's bow that is long overdue. The last thing I would say is that Senator Sessions has come into this issue, and he has brought an intellectual weight to it, emotional commitment. He understands the middle class. Jeff Sessions has been the best partner anyone could hope to have to try to push a bill forward that will give America a fighting chance in a world economy dominated unfairly by a Communist dictatorship. I want to recognize what Senator Sessions has done. He is going to vote to move forward. We have had it with China. Let's do something that will matter. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to speak on two topics, briefly, the nomination of Judge Henry Floyd for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the motion to proceed on China's currency. First, Judge Henry Floyd has been nominated by President Obama to serve on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, VA. He has a lot of bipartisan support from South Carolina. He was nominated by President Bush to be a district court judge. He served as a State court judge before that, and he has a distinguished record as a State and Federal jurist. He is an outstanding choice by the President to serve on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. I have known Henry Floyd for many years. I have practiced law with him. I have appeared before him as a State judge and have followed his career. He is unanimously rated as well qualified to proceed to the Fourth Circuit. He has an outstanding legal background, great temperament, and is one of the most qualified district court judges in South Carolina. He will serve the people of the Fourth Judicial Circuit well on the court of appeals. He has the kind of intellect and common sense I think most people in this part of the country will appreciate having on the court. I want to thank the Obama administration, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this well-qualified, fine man to go to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has a lot of bipartisan support at home. Everybody who knows Judge Floyd is a big fan--right, left, and center.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I wish to thank you and Senator Leahy for bringing the nomination to the floor. Very quickly, colleagues, this is a confirmation vote for Timothy Cain to be a Federal judge in South Carolina. Tim was my law partner, so I will just put my biases right out on the table. He has been a family court judge since 2000 in the Tenth Judicial Circuit, dealing with the most complicated and emotional issues in the law, and we will not find one person who has practiced before Tim Cain as a lawyer who has anything other than high praise for the way he handles himself. Tim has been a prosecutor, a public defender. He was assistant county attorney. He has a very distinguished record in the law. But, more important, he is one of the most decent people I have ever met. His wife Renee and son Martin are the most charming, decent people one could ever hope to meet. I thank President Obama for nominating him. I appreciate the support from Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley working this nomination through the process. This will be a big win for the State of South Carolina and all who come before Judge Cain. He is a total package of intellect, character, integrity, common sense, judicial disposition and demeanor, and I could not be more proud. This is probably one of the most satisfying moments I have had as a Senator, to get up and recommend to my colleagues the approval of Tim Cain to be a Federal judge in the State of South Carolina. I just can't wait to see him take over in our courts and administer justice. So I say to Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy, thank you both. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Mike Mullen who is retiring as the 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after more than 43 years of distinguished service to our country. Admiral Mullen began his rise in the Navy as a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy, where he became a proud graduate in 1968. Upon graduation, then Ensign Mullen reported aboard the USS Collett, deploying to the Western Pacific and participating in combat operations off the coast of Vietnam. Eventually, his career at sea would include serving aboard six other warships, including command of three, as well as command of the George Washington Carrier Strike Group and U.S. Second Fleet. He supplemented his systems engineering degree from Annapolis with a master of science degree in operations research from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA, and a business degree from the advanced management program at Harvard. Ashore, he similarly distinguished himself with tours at the U.S. Naval Academy, the Bureau of Naval Personnel, the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations as well as in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. With an already exemplary career of service at sea and ashore, Admiral Mullen became the Navy's 32nd Vice Chief of Naval Operations in 2003. During the first half of 2005, he served as Commander of NATO's Joint Force Command Naples and Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe, leading the Alliance's peacekeeping operations in the Balkans and its critical training mission in Iraq. In July of 2005, he became the top uniformed leader in the Navy as the 28th Chief of Naval Operations. With the Nation fighting two wars, he oversaw the service's efforts to man, train, and equip our Navy to fulfill its traditional missions at sea. Facing innovative and nontraditional enemies, Admiral Mullen conceived and championed the Navy's vital contribution to the fight on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dedicated to keeping the sea lanes free, deterring aggression, and maintaining our Nation's maritime superiority, he also led efforts to stabilize the Navy's shipbuilding program to support a 313-ship fleet. On October 1, 2007, Admiral Mullen assumed duties as the 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Facing a myriad of challenges, and with ongoing conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan, he worked tirelessly with our Nation's leadership to oversee multiple, sustained joint military operations. Admiral Mullen's efforts played a vital role in disrupting terrorist networks, providing humanitarian assistance at home and abroad, and improving the security and stability in Iraq. Recognizing the danger of an Allied failure in Afghanistan, he became an early and vocal proponent of resourcing the war by expanding counterinsurgency capabilities and fostering closer ties with strategically vital Pakistan. Never forgetting that those who return from war often continue to bear scars--both seen and unseen--Admiral Mullen and his wife Deborah passionately represented the interests of the men and women returning from the battlefield. He initiated an unprecedented nationwide dialogue to advance awareness and support for the many issues facing our warriors, veterans, and their families. Many have recognized Admiral Mullen's dedication to service with a wide range of awards and decorations. But I know first hand that his truest reward is the satisfaction he must feel for a lifetime of service to a country he so deeply loves. Admiral Mullen's commitment to the Americans who have given so much will endure well beyond his days in uniform. I will add that Admiral Mullen's legacy will continue in another way after retirement. He and Deborah continue to proudly support their sons, John and Michael, as they pursue their own uniformed service in support of the world's greatest Navy. The U.S. Navy and our military will never forget the service of Mike Mullen, one of its most respected and valued leaders, who took the helm during a dynamic and uncertain time in our Nation's history. And none of us will ever forget how he led--with humility, a selfless devotion to others, and integrity. Please join me in recognizing and commending ADM Mike Mullen for a lifetime of service to his country and to wish him the best in his retirement. May God bless Mike and Deborah, and their family, for all they have given and continue to give our country. We remain in their debt.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. This is very important. We are broke at home, and there are a lot of things we could and should be doing for our States. I want to try to get our fiscal house in order, but we have to defend this country. The foreign operations account is national security in another form. If you just do not always want to bomb people, you need to help people help themselves, and the money in this account will allow people to stand up against terrorism and do things America has been doing for a long time; that is, helping people who really would be better off for the experience and have a kindness toward us. If you think Israel needs a friend now, this would hurt our relationship in terms of support to Israel. So all of those in this body who want to make sure Israel gets the right message at a time of need, please vote against this amendment because it will hurt our relationship.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the passing of Dr. Larry Manning Ross, a great South Carolinian, who not only served his country honorably in uniform but also worked tirelessly as a psychologist for many years. Dr. Ross graduated from Citadel in 1963 and served in the Vietnam war, where as a captain he was wounded in 1968. For his actions, Dr. Ross was awarded the Silver Star and the Vietnam Cross. After being medically discharged from the military, Dr. Ross went on to earn a PhD in psychology and taught at the University of South Carolina. He served in private practice until he could no longer practice. Dr. Ross was an incredible man who made countless sacrifices for his family and for his country and for that I would like to honor him.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to MAJ Sam Glover for his extraordinary service to the Nation while serving in the U.S. Army for the past 18 years. His record of distinguished service includes tours in Korea, Bosnia, Iraq, and a nominative assignment as a defense fellow in the U.S. Senate. Major Glover started his military career as an enlisted soldier--a combat engineer--in the South Carolina National Guard. After graduating from South Carolina State University, Major Glover was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Army Aviation Corps. After completing requirements to become a UH-60 Blackhawk pilot, he served in Korea, where he served as a platoon leader for Bravo Company, 1-52nd Aviation Regiment supporting South Korean Special Operations Forces. After his Korea tour, Major Glover was assigned to Fort Bragg, NC. Major Glover deployed with his unit to Bosnia-Herzegovina in support of Operation Joint Forge. During this deployment he acted as forward detachment commander during the Kosovo air strikes. In addition, he provided aerial security support at the G-8 conference in Sarajevo, Bosnia, for President Clinton and other key leaders. Following his Fort Bragg assignment, he assumed command of HHC-1- 212th Aviation Company at Fort Rucker, AL. As the company commander, Major Glover managed the two largest Army heliports, training over 2,000 students and as an instructor pilot received his Army Senior Aviator Badge flying over 1,500 hours. Following company command, Major Glover became a system evaluator for the procurement of new military system and equipment at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. He was then deployed to Iraq as an operations officer of a military transition team that trained over 830 Iraqis and conducted over 100 combat missions. After he returned from Iraq, Major Glover was selected as an Army comptroller and worked in the Pentagon at the Army Asymmetric Warfare Office, AAWO in the Improvised Explosive Device, IED, Division. During that time he was one of the original combat vehicle architects of the Mine Resistant Ambush Program, MRAP, and worked with Congress and defense leaders to fund 12,000 vehicles valued at $17 billion. Major Glover was then selected as a Department of Defense congressional fellow and served as an Army fellow in the U.S. Senate for 1 year. After his tenure as a military fellow, he most recently served as Army congressional legislative liaison in the Army Senate Liaison Division. He represented the Army on Capitol Hill and conducted numerous codels and staffdels across the world. He has coordinated over 1,500 Capitol Hill and White House tours for State, local, and military constituents. Mr. President, on behalf of the grateful nation, I join my colleagues today in saying thank you to MAJ Sam Glover for his extraordinary dedication to duty and service to the country throughout his distinguished career in the U.S. Army.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. If the Senator will yield for a second, that is a good point. We have been asked to go by both administrations. The Iraqis have a political problem. That is not lost upon us. Most people in most countries don't want hundreds of thousands of foreign troops roaming around their country forever. So the Iraqis have been upfront with us. We want to continue the partnership, but it needs to be at a smaller level. They are absolutely right. I don't buy one moment that there is a movement in Iraq saying we will take 3,000, not 1 soldier more. I think what is going on here is there is, as Senator McCain suggested, a number drives the mission, not the mission drives the number. At the end of the day, this 3,000 doesn't get any of the essential jobs done. It leads to 3,000 exposed. It leaves the thousands of civilians without the help they need. It leaves the Iraqi military in a lurch. There is no upside to this. I would end with this thought: Let's get the missions identified and resource them in an adequate way, and I think the country will rally around the President. I cannot think of too many Americans who would want our people to be in harm's way unnecessarily. If you leave one, you have some obligation to the one. Well, if you left one, you would be doing that person a disservice. Leave enough so we can get it right, and that number is far beyond 3,000.

Mr. GRAHAM. That is a very good point, and that is exactly sort of where I was going to take this. That requires the footprint of thousands. We don't need 5,000, but I think 10,000 when you add it up is probably the bare minimum to do this. Because the commanders who are policing the Kurdish-Arab dispute boundary line in the northern part of Iraq have come up with a very novel approach, and I want to give the administration credit and the military credit. What they have done is they have taken Peshmergas, which are basically Kurdish militia, integrated them with Iraqi national security forces and American forces to form companies that eventually go to brigades, where they will get to know each other and work together as a team. I think any neutral observer would tell you our presence in Kirkuk has prevented a shooting conflict in the past. That is what President Barzai is worried about in the Kurdish areas. That is 5,000, he said. He has said we will need 5,000 troops here for a while to make sure this new concept of jointness develops over time. So when you add the whole package, you are somewhere around 10,000 plus. To the administration, not only is bipartisanship desired in national security, I think it is required. We can look back and pat each other on the back or blame each other about Iraq. That is not what I am trying to do. We are where we are, and we are in a pretty decent place to the point that the Iranians are going nuts. They are trying to undercut Iraq's national development, because their biggest nightmare is to have a representative democracy on their border. That will incite their own people in Iran to ask for more freedom. So, please, to the Obama administration, don't make the same mistakes at the end that the Bush administration made in the beginning. I can say with some credibility that I argued against my own political party infrastructure, that Senators McCain and Lieberman and others--we went there enough to know it was not a few dead-enders, that the whole security footprint was not sufficient, and the model to change Iraq was not working. It was General Petraeus's model that was adopted, to President Bush's credit. That was a hard decision for President Bush. The war was incredibly unpopular. People were frustrated. It seemed it was a lost cause, and President Bush went against what was the political tide at the moment. I am glad he did. I ask President Obama to consider the long-term national security interests of the United States and do what Senator McCain suggested-- not what he suggested, what our military suggested: define missions. Is it important to have some support to intelligence gathering? I would say yes. Training the Army and Air Force and Navy? I would say yes. Having some presence to protect our civilians who are going to be the largest groups? I would say overwhelmingly yes. Does it make sense to have some American military support in the Kurdish-Arab dispute area? Overwhelmingly yes. We will stand by you. I think most Americans are frustrated and war weary, but they don't want to lose. We are very close to changing Iraq by helping the Iraqi people. We can't change Iraq; only they can. They want to. We talk about the deaths of Americans and it breaks our hearts. For every American who has died there have probably been 10 Iraqis. This has not been easy for people in Iraq. That is why I never lost faith. What kept me going with Iraq and Afghanistan is I have been there enough to know there are people in those countries who want the same thing for their children as most people in this body want for theirs. To be a judge in America, one can get criticized. It is a tough job. One can lose their life in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I have personally met people who decided to step to the plate--to be lawyers, be judges, be policemen--who got killed. They knew what was coming their way. It is in our national security interest to help this infant democracy, and that is what it is. Corruption still abounds, there are tons of problems in Iraq, but they are on the right trajectory. I am asking the administration: Listen to your commanders. And 25,000, in my view--I am not a commander, but I could understand why the President would say that is a bridge too far. I know what the generals have recommended. It goes from the midteens to the midtwenties. But somewhere to the north of 10, given my understanding of Iraq, I think it will work. But I know we are broke. One thing I can tell you is, we cannot afford to lose after all this investment. The price and cost of losing in Iraq now would be devastating for years to come. If we do not see this through, who would help us in the future push back against extremism, knowing that America left at a time when they were asking us to stay? I am confident Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds want us there in reasonable numbers to make sure they can have the help they need to get this right. Apparently, the decision has not been made yet. I am urging the administration to look at the missions, be reasonable, understand that we cannot give the military all they want all the time. This is the decision of the Commander in Chief. He is a good man. It is his call. But the one thing I offer and I think the three of us offer in these very difficult times when America is under siege at home is to be supportive voices for the idea we cannot retreat and become fortress America. Look what happened when a few people from Afghanistan, in far away places, for less than $1 million--what havoc they wreaked on our country. This Sunday is the 10th anniversary. I am hopeful as we get to the 10th anniversary we can look back and say we have defended America in a bipartisan way. It is not just luck that has prevented us from being attacked. The President deserves a lot of credit for going after bin Laden, a lot of credit for adding to troops in Afghanistan when people were ready to come home. I urge this administration to listen to our military leaders and finish this right. It would be a tragedy upon a tragedy for us to be inside the 10-yard line and fumble at a time when we can score a touchdown--not only for our national security but for fundamental change in the Mideast. If we get it right in Iraq, the Arab spring is going to get the support it needs and deserves. If we fail in Iraq, it will be just repeating history's mistakes. The Bush administration did change. Thank God they did because they did not get it right early on. We are so close to the end now. Let's be cautious, let's be reasonable, let's err on the side of making sure we can sustain what we have all fought for. I tell you this: History will judge everybody well, including President Obama--and that would be OK with me--if we can turn Saddam Hussein's dictatorship into a representative government that would be aligned with us and be a voice of moderation for the rest of the 21st century. I would like to get Senator Lieberman's thoughts. It is one thing for me to talk about this in South Carolina. But even in South Carolina, a very red State, people are war weary and they are not excited about having to stay in Iraq in 2012. I think they will listen to reason. But during the darkest days of this effort in Iraq, Senator McCain went the road less traveled by saying we need more at a time when the polls said everybody is ready to come home. I do not question anybody's patriotism. It was a hard call. It was a tough fight, and there were no easy answers. But I am glad we chose to do what we did. I am glad President Bush adjusted. But Senator Lieberman, above all of us quite frankly, literally risked his political career because he believed that what happened in Iraq mattered to the United States. The Senator was right. I want to thank him on behalf of all those who served in Iraq for giving them the time and resources to prove we could get it right. I would like the Senator to, if he doesn't mind, to share his thoughts with the body about how we should finish Iraq.

Mr. GRAHAM. I will add, if I may, the 3,000 number does not allow the missions that are obvious to most everybody who has looked at Iraq to be performed in a successful manner. That is the bottom line. That is why no one has thrown out 3,000 before. Can you do it with 10,000? That is where you are pushing the envelope. The Kurdish-Arab boundary dispute almost went hot. This new plan we have come up with to integrate the Peshmurga, the Iraqi security forces with some Americans, will pay dividends over time. Mr. President, 5,000 is what the American commander said he needed to continue that plan. We have a plan to even wind down that number. It is just going to take a while. When it comes to Iraq, I can tell you right now I would not want our American civilians to be without some American military support, given what I know is coming to Iraq from Iran.

Mr. GRAHAM. If I may, trying to respond to the Senator's question, the answer is yes. But you don't have to believe me or Senator McCain. Ambassador Jeffrey, who is our U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, told us back in June when he was getting confirmed that all civilian movements are accompanied by American forces, to some extent, a mixture of Iraqi and American forces. We are about to pass the baton between the Department of Defense to the Department of State. The civilian-military partnership that has been formed over the last decade has been working very well, and the future of Iraq is in Iraqis' hands, but they do need our help. As Senator McCain said, we are helping ourselves. On June 24, 2010, we asked General Odierno, Where are we in terms of Iraq? How would you evaluate our situation? And since this is football season----

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. This was at a hearing for confirmation for General Austin. He said, We are inside the 10-yard line. Well, this is football season. I think most Americans can understand this great progress. He said, We have four downs. This is first in 10, on the 10, we have 4 downs. He felt good that we can get it into the end zone, but getting it into the end zone is going to require a follow-on presence in 2012. Having said that, I know most Americans want our troops to come home. Include me in that group. We are going to go from 50,000 to zero at the end of this year if something new doesn't happen. I am confident the Iraqis want our continued presence in a reasoned way. What do they need that we can provide? Intelligence gathering. We have the best intelligence-gathering capability of anyone in the world, and it helps the Iraqis stay ahead of their enemies. And who are their enemies? The Iranians are trying to destabilize this young democracy. Ambassador Jeffrey, who is a good man, said the reason we need to get Iraq right is it helps our national security interests. Show me an example in history where two democracies went to war. There is not any. So if he could take Saddam Hussein's dictatorship and replace it with a representative government, that is a huge advancement in our national security interests over time. What do the Iraqis need militarily? They don't have a mature air force, so General Austin said it would be in our interests not only to sell them planes, F-16s, but actually train them how to use those airplanes. They have an infant navy to patrol their coast, to protect them against threats there. It is in our interests not only to train and develop the Iraqi police and army but to make sure that our civilians who are going to help build this new democracy can travel without fear and without unnecessary casualties, because the Iranians are going to try to undercut us at every turn. That means targeting American forces left behind. What else do they need? Counterterrorism. Al-Qaida and other groups, other radical groups, are going to try to come back into Iraq and destabilize what we have done. We have seen some signs of that. We have had 60 al-Qaida types released from American custody to Iraqi custody, and some are back out on the streets. So a counterterrorism footprint would be smart. Vice President Biden is right about this. A CT footprint in Afghanistan and Iraq makes sense. When you add up all these missions, intelligence gathering, training, embedding, counterterrorism, force protection----

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. GRAHAM. I would appreciate the Chair letting me know when 4 minutes has expired. Let us put this debate in context. In 2010, we had a major election in the country. The people who were elected in the House made promises to their constituents: If you send me to Congress, I will try to change the system and deal with the fact our Nation is being run into the ground. We have more debt than any future generation can ever pay off, with 40 cents of every dollar we spend being borrowed money. If you are born today, you inherit about $48,000 of debt. We are spending more on Social Security payments than we collect in taxes. Medicare is underfunded by $30-something trillion over the next 75 years. When you add up all entitlement programs, we are about $50 trillion short of the promises we have made. Simply put, the House Republicans who were elected, during their campaigns said: I believe Congress is out of control. We are going to become Greece, and I want to do something about it. What did you expect when they got here? They would say: Okay, I have been taught the real way the Congress works, and it is all okay. They did something about it. Congratulations. Anytime a person running for office fulfills the promises they made to their constituents, they have done a great service to democracy. Cut, cap, and balance is the House effort to reduce spending not 10 years from now but this coming year. The problem with all these plans and the very sincere efforts in the past to solve our debt problems-- Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997 between President Clinton and the Republicans--and I was here then when we achieved balance, because we restricted the growth of entitlements such as Medicare, we restricted doctor and hospital payments, and we actually balanced the budget for a year or two, but then we found out how much it was hurting doctors and hospitals. We didn't institute real reform. We began to nickel and dime doctors and hospitals, and guess what. We stopped the program and we spent all the surpluses. How do you get $14-trillion-plus in debt? Both parties are working together. This has been a bipartisan effort for about 30 years to run the country into the ground. I want a break. I want to have a bipartisan effort to save the country from becoming Greece, and the only way you can do that is to put ideas on the table. Please, I say to my Democratic colleagues, let this debate go forward. If this is not worth debating, what would be? How do you save the country from becoming a debtor nation to the point the next generation can't inherit the American dream? If you have a better plan than cut, cap, and balance, please show it to us. We are willing to raise the debt limit, but we are not going to do it without changing the reason we got in debt. The cut part reduces spending in 2012 by $100 billion. That will cause some pain, but it is eminently doable. It is about 3 or 4 percent of the Federal budget. I think most people at home believe they can cut their budget 3 or 4 percent. If they had to do it to save their family, they would. We are talking about saving the country. The cap is an effort to control spending over 10 years to wipe out the $1.4 trillion deficit. We are going to become Greece because we are going to have 100 percent of debt to GDP in about the next 20 years, and a trillion-plus deficit has to be changed. You can't do it overnight, but you should be able to do it over 10 years. The centerpiece of the House legislation is the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. What rational person believes that Republicans on this side and Democrats on that side are ever going to find a way to fix our Nation's problems without something new happening?

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. After 40 years, the evidence is in. The Congress is broken, and unless you change the system fundamentally, we are going to run our Nation into the ground. So I support a balanced budget amendment. Here is the way it works: You have to get two-thirds in the Senate and the House and three-fourths of the States have to ratify the balanced budget amendment. Give the people of America a chance to have their say. Let's pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution before we take the country and put it in a situation beyond redemption. The only thing that is ever going to change this body, I am sad to say, is some discipline imposed by the Constitution itself. I promise my colleagues to work with you where I can. But for the rest of my time in the Senate--and I don't know how long it is going to be--I am going to push a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, because I don't trust the Congress to do the hard work on its own. And when I say that, I mean Republicans too.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, I thank the Senator. I will give my thoughts as briefly as I can. My first thought is that we live in incredibly dangerous times--exciting and dangerous. What is the Arab spring about? What are people asking for in Libya? They are asking to replace Qadhafi and form a new government where they will have a say. I do not think that is too much to ask. All I can say is that America's freedom is best secured when she, America, is assisting others to obtain theirs. And the one thing history tells us, free people settle their differences without resorting to the evils of war. So to those in this body and throughout the country--I know we are broke. We are here today to supposedly talk about the budget. Well, we are not doing anything but talking. We are $14.3 trillion in debt. There are all kinds of ideas between Republicans and Democrats about how to get the country's fiscal house in order. It is July 5. We are here looking at each other doing nothing. But there is another part of the world, as the Senate and the House basically talk about America being in debt, where people are dying, as I speak, trying to change their government for the better. What should we do? I will tell you what we should do. We should help where we can. Senator McCain has experienced war unlike very few people in this body. He knows when we go to war bad things happen to good people. The idea that he or myself or anybody else relishes trying to go to war or being in war is offensive, quite frankly. He knows better than I, and I have a pretty good understanding of what happens when we go to war. But here is what happens when we do not go to war sometimes: Bad people are able to do incredible things that we wind up having to confront later, and it costs everybody more to have waited. So what are we doing in Libya? We are following rather than leading. Now, to Senator McCain's question. NATO's bombing activities are being done without American air power. We spend more money than all NATO nations combined on defense. I know a lot of Americans do not like that. I do not like it either, but it is the way it is. We are the arsenal of democracy. When America does not fly, wars go on longer, more people get raped, more people get killed. Let me tell you, if Qadhafi survives this is the end of NATO. If you do not want America to go alone in this dangerous world, count me in. But who are we going to partner with? If the U.N. is seen by the American people as an unreliable group to deal with dictators--and it is--what if NATO is no longer an organization that people throughout the world respect on the side of good, and the evil side of the ledger does not care if NATO gets involved because they do not have the will to do anything about it? So we should be involved with our NATO partners. Our NATO partners depend on Libya more than we do. They came to Afghanistan not because they were attacked but because we were attacked. They are our friends. They are our allies. They have been with us trying to make sure Afghanistan never goes back into the darkness, a place that attacked us or them again. So when they need us, I will tell President Obama: Now is not the time to sit on the sidelines. I know we are a war-weary Nation, but there is no upside to Qadhafi staying in power. That is a national security nightmare for this country. Here is a recent headline: Qadhafi threatens to attack Europe over airstrikes. Colonel Qadhafi has threatened to carry out attacks against homes, offices, families in Europe unless NATO stops its campaign of air strikes against his regime in Libya. He actually means it. Hitler meant it. He means it. So we should be talking about the debt; we are not. We should be taking a stand against Qadhafi in an effective way. As Senator McCain said, we are leading from behind. I just cannot tell you how upset I am with policies coming from this administration that are sending the signal to our allies that we are not as reliable as we should be, and to our enemies that we do not have the same amount of will to protect our freedom as they do to take it away from us.

Mr. GRAHAM. If I may, we have our good colleague, a Naval intelligence officer, Senator Kirk from Illinois, and we will certainly yield to him now. But one last thought. America needs to do two things quickly: We need to get our fiscal house in order. We need to balance our budget and decide among ourselves how important is this national security. To me, it is the No. 1 thing we should do in Congress. If we do not get that right, there is nothing else that is going to matter. There will never be economic prosperity in America if the world is in the hands of evil people who will make it very difficult to travel and trade and do business. The other thing we need to do, after we balance our budget, is to have a clear vision of who we are and what we believe. I believe we are destined to lead the free world. I do not consider it a burden. I consider it the birthright of all Americans, not only to maintain our freedom but to help others secure theirs. A word of warning: The day that America rejects that leadership role is a day we will eventually lose our freedom and more damage will be done to this country if we disengage than if we do engage. So with that, I would like to recognize Senator Kirk from Illinois.

Mr. GRAHAM. If I could try to answer the hostility question. When we are using Predator drones to bring down military targets, that, to me, is an acceptable situation in Libya. I do not want ground troops in Libya. The people in Libya do not want a ground invasion by NATO forces. They want our help. And what do we have to offer better than anybody in the world? Intelligence gathering. These platforms that are gathering information about targets are unique to America. The target packages that are being put together are being done mostly by Americans, and we are turning these target packages over to NATO countries. Some of the aircraft that are flying--and God bless our allies for taking this risk--are 30 years old. No one has the ability like the American Air Force and naval forces to carry on aerial campaigns. But some people in this body have a right to have their say like we do. We should be debating this, but the administration's position that a Predator drone attack is not a hostile act is dangerous because in Yemen, the administration, with my full support, is taking the fight to Yemen today. They are using Predator drone attacks against al-Qaida groups in Yemen. We just had special forces involved in killing al- Qaida operatives in Somalia. We have to be on the offensive. We need to be hitting these people over there before they can reorganize and hit us here. So I support the administration's ability and constitutional right to take the fight to the enemy. But for them to tell the body these are not hostile acts is the ultimate confusion. It is confusing to the enemy; it is confusing to our allies; it is confusing to the American people. I reject this definition being offered by this administration that using Predator drones to attack targets is not a hostile act. I believe the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. There are two things we can do in this body as a Member of Congress: We can declare war and we can cut off funding when we do not like things the way they are going. We very seldom declare war in this Nation from a congressional point of view for a reason. But we have constantly engaged forces that wish to attack us and our allies without declarations of war. If you do not like what we are doing in Libya, cut off funding. Do not try to micromanage the war through congressional fiat. So $30 billion is available to the Libyan people. It is money frozen, stolen by Qadhafi. The Turkish Government, the French, the British in some sense have recognized this Transitional National Council. If we would do that, they would have access to the $30 billion. Senator McCain met with the leadership of this council. I have too. They would gladly pay us back for any assistance we could provide if they could get their hands on the money. Does the Senator agree with that?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I think our American military will be studying the Petraeus tactics and strategy that he implemented in Iraq and Afghanistan for generations to come. In January of 2007 when the surge was announced, I had had the pleasure of being over in Iraq in April, but I remember a letter issued by General Petraeus to all those under his command and it was basically entitled ``Hard is not Hopeless.'' He explained in great detail in the letter how we would move forward as a nation, that it would be difficult, it would be hard, but not hopeless. I have seen the inspiration he provides to our men and women in uniform, and I cannot tell you how much this country owes General Petraeus and his family. He has been deployed almost continuously since 2001, but what he was able to accomplish in Iraq with the help of those under his command, he will be the first to say, they deserve the credit. And now Afghanistan. He came into Afghanistan under very difficult circumstances, losing a commander in the field. The progress in the last year has been stunning. The Taliban in the south has been knocked down hard. There is a 90,000 increase in the Afghan national security forces. We have a new training program to train Afghan security forces, and I think it will pay great dividends. To the President, you have chosen wisely in picking David Petraeus to be the Director of the CIA. I am confident Director Petraeus will do as good a job for the country as General Petraeus, and that is saying a lot. Following Leon Panetta, who did a great job, we are in good hands as a nation. I don't believe any single person understands the threats America faces better than General Petraeus. At the CIA he will have a chance to take the fight to the enemy in a different way. We will not have available forever 100,000 troops to be used in theaters of battle. We are going to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope we do it smartly based on conditions. But this fight is morphing into other countries, Yemen, Somalia, the Horn of Africa, and the Nation is playing a more crucial role in our Nation's defense than at any time in the history of the CIA. We will be blessed to have David Petraeus to be Director of the CIA. He understands the threats. I think he will be able to marshal the resources of the CIA to keep the enemies on their heels and to reinforce to our allies that we are a reliable partner and to our enemies there is no place you can hide. There is no passage of time that will keep you safe from American justice. I hope the Congress--I know Senator Chambliss will, the Senate in particular--will listen to General Petraeus, who will soon be Director Petraeus, about how to make sure the CIA is equipped and funded to take on the enemy. In this war on terror, we are fighting an idea. There is no capital to conquer, there is no air force to down, there is no navy to sink. We are battling an idea. And the way we ultimately become safe is to empower those who have the will to fight the terrorists in their backyard to provide them with the capacity to let the terrorists organizations know we will follow you to the gates of hell, that we will never relent. The CIA and the brave men and women who serve in that organization are becoming the tip of the spear in this battle. What happened in Somalia yesterday, what is going to happen in the future in Yemen and Somalia is a direct result of good intelligence and national will. To Senator McCain and those who have gotten to know General Petraeus, I can assure you that President Obama chose wisely. This is the perfect job for David Petraeus to take up for the Nation. He has the understanding of the threats we face and the CIA is the platform we will be using against the enemy more effectively than any other platform I know. With that, I look forward to casting my vote for Director of the CIA David Petraeus, and I hope everybody in this body will provide a vote of confidence to General Petraeus. He has earned this. America is in good hands with David Petraeus being the CIA Director. I yield. I note the absence of a quorum.