John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is, obviously, an important vote that is coming up. I repeat, I am not opposed in principle to bringing up the Defense bill and debating it, amending it, and voting on it. I am not opposed to having a full and informed debate on whether to repeal don't ask, don't tell and then allowing the Senate to legislate. What I am opposed to is bringing up the Defense bill now before the Defense Department has completed its survey because we need to know the views of the men and women who are serving in the military in uniform. Give them a chance to tell us their views. Whether you agree or disagree with the policy, whether you want to keep it or repeal it, the Senate should not be forced to make this decision now before we have heard from our troops. We have asked for their views, and we should wait to hear from them. All four service chiefs have said the same thing: Let's conduct the survey, let's get it done and then act on whether to repeal or not repeal. There is one other aspect. This is a blatant political ploy in order to try to galvanize the political base of the other side, which is facing a losing election. That is why the majority leader said we would take up don't ask, don't tell, take up the DREAM Act, and then take up the issue of secret holds and then address the other issues after the election. I wonder why the majority leader would have those priorities--in other words, take up those that would be politically beneficial, galvanize his political base as far as the Hispanic community is concerned and the gay and lesbian community, and then take up the other issues after--after--the election is over in lameduck session. This majority leader has filled up the tree and has not allowed debate 40 times--40 times--more than all the other majority leaders preceding him. Last year, the hate crimes bill was arranged in such a way that there were not amendments that could be proposed by my side of the aisle. So let's vote against cloture. Let's sit down and try to reach some kind of an agreement. Let the men and women in the military be heard from. Let their leaders go to their men and women who are serving and tell them we have heard their input before we make this legislative change and stop the cynical manipulation of the men and women in the military in order to get votes on November 2. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. I just wish to emphasize again the statements of the service chiefs. GEN George Casey: I remain convinced that it is critically important to get a better understanding of where our Soldiers and Families are on this issue, and what the impacts on readiness and unit cohesion might be, so that I can provide informed military advice to the President and the Congress. I also believe that repealing the law before the completion of the review will be seen by the men and women of the Army as a reversal of our commitment to hear their views before moving forward. Admiral Roughead: My concern is that legislative changes at this point, regardless of the precise language used, may cause confusion on the status of the law in the Fleet and disrupt the review process itself by leading Sailors to question whether their input matters. General Conway: I encourage the Congress to let the process the Secretary of Defense created to run its course. General Schwartz: I believe it is important, a matter of keeping faith with those currently serving in the Armed Forces, that the Secretary of Defense commissioned review be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law. Let's listen to the people we place in charge of the men and women in the military. This is not the time to move forward on this issue, particularly with a political campaign at its highest. I hope my colleagues will oppose the cloture vote and let's hear a statement in favor of the men and women serving in the military. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. I certainly do not in any way indicate that there is any physical ailment that will cause you not to be a Member of the Senate next January. If the Senator from New Hampshire could provide us with the benefit of his experience in both the House and the Senate, and also maybe he would give us at some point his view of what we need to do to fix this gridlock we have over the economy. He has done it on numerous occasions, but it comes to my mind that perhaps the Senator from New Hampshire at some time would take an hour on the floor and say: Here is what I think we need to do. I think it would be valuable. I don't think there is anybody in the Senate today who has a better grasp for the budgetary issues we have to grapple with as we face an unprecedented situation of debt and deficit. Perhaps after this election, it may be possible for us to sit down and be included in the agenda of the Senate. That is one of the things that has been a big change. It used to be that at least the majority leader, whichever party was in the majority, would come over and say: Here is our agenda. What is your agenda? What is your input? What do you want to see happen? Most of the time nowadays, we hear what is going to happen either through reading it in the media or when the majority leader comes to the floor and says: Here is what we will take up next. It does not lead to comity.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I make a couple of comments? One is, one of the things that has disappeared that I saw in the first years I was here in the Senate is the two leaders sitting down and perhaps coming to informal agreements that are then put into unanimous consent agreements to move forward. The other aspect of this I wonder if my colleagues would care to comment on. One of the reasons why we have these--the majority leader comes forward, as I believe he has 40 times, brings up a bill and then immediately fills up the tree--and to the uninitiated, obviously that means there will be no other amendments allowed through that kind of parliamentary procedure. A lot of times that is read by the Members saying, hey, there is going to be an amendment up that I do not want to have to vote on. I do not want to have to vote on it. So fill up the tree, have no other amendments allowed to be voted on. It seems to me that we should have the courage to go ahead and vote. Time after time, when I have seen basically a shutout from amendments, I have said, look, I will agree to a time agreement. I am not going to filibuster it. Just give us 15 minutes either side and vote on it. But they do not want to take tough votes. I am not going to call it cowardice, but I cannot call it courage, that people will prevail and say, hey, let's fill up the tree so we can only get this done and we will not have to take a tough vote on whatever the issue is that seems to be attracting the attention of the American people. I say to my colleague from New Hampshire, who will not be with us next January----

Mr. McCAIN. Doesn't it send a message to people who are having their budgets squeezed, having to make the most difficult decisions about their budget, that this body will function and continue to appropriate money for our functions without a budget of our own? What kind of a signal does that send to the American people? Doesn't that contribute to the disconnect and the frustration Americans feel and give rise to the tea party, which has had a seismic effect on the political landscape?

Mr. McCAIN. One of the first decisions every family has to make is what is the budget, what are they going to be able to spend. We will be going out of session sometime here before the election without even a cursory effort at a budget.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Glen MacDonald, a military legislative fellow in Senator Vitter's office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on S. 3454, the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Is it the understanding of the Senator from South Carolina that we would be taking up the DREAM Act which, if going through the regular process, would go to the Judiciary Committee, and the don't ask, don't tell issue and perhaps something about secret holds, and then go off of the bill until after the elections in a very constrictive timeframe of a lameduck session? What is the Senator's view about what the priorities of the leadership are? Is it political? Why else would we take up only certain amendments and then move off a bill that would then resume possibly for some truncated period after the election? What is that all about?

Mr. McCAIN. If we do address the issue on the Defense authorization bill or if we were addressing the issue, would it be more appropriate to assess the impact on battle effectiveness and morale on the men and women serving and then arrive at a decision as to whether that legislation or any other legislation, although this is very important legislation, should be repealed? Instead, isn't it true the construct of the way it went through the Armed Services Committee is that the three individuals who support repeal--the President, who made a political promise; the Secretary of Defense, whom we admire; and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--will make a determination as to whether the study has been completed sufficiently to ensure the repeal of don't ask, don't tell without difficulty as opposed to taking a survey, finding out about the impact on morale and battle readiness and then make a determination? Also, according to this process set up in the Armed Services Committee, the four service chiefs--Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force--are left out of the decisionmaking. Why? Because they have called for exactly what I was just describing, which is a study to assess the impact on morale and effectiveness prior to repeal. In other words, in this instance, the fix is in.

Mr. McCAIN. One more question: The issue is the proposal to include the so-called DREAM Act. I think every Member of Congress, every American citizen has some sympathy for individuals who were brought to this country without making the decision to do so, not forgetting that the people who brought them to this country were breaking our laws when they did so. Isn't it also true that if we address the DREAM Act or other parts of comprehensive immigration reform before securing the borders, then 1, 2, 5, 10 years from now we will be faced with another generation of young people who were brought here against their will who have a compelling story to tell? In other words, isn't the moral of this story--to harken back to the 1980s--under our beloved Ronald Reagan we gave amnesty to a couple million people, and they said they would secure the borders, and we ended up with 12 million people who were here illegally? So isn't that the situation we all want to remedy, but we want to make sure we do not have to remedy it again?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be brief because I know there will be a lot more debate tomorrow. The distinguished chairman just mentioned a number of authorized programs that sound pretty good. They were put in without debate, discussion or amendments. He also left out several that might be of interest to taxpayers, which may be the reason why we see such anger about the kind of spending--out-of-control spending and unnecessary spending. Here is $1 million for foreign language correlation and translation; $3 million for plant-based vaccine development; $4.5 million for decision and energy reduction tool. The list goes on and on. Here is $5 million for operator driving simulator; $1 million for Permafrost Tunnel; $2.5 million for body temperature conditioner. All of these, in the eyes of the chairman, are more important than taking care of our allies and cementing success in our operations in Iraq, which was a result of the surge which the chairman, of course, adamantly opposed. Here is $7.6 million for a Quiet Propulsion Load House; $3 million for tribology research. The list goes on and on: $8 million for a physical fitness center. By the way, none of these were requested by the Department of Defense. So we will be going into this some more tomorrow, and we will request an earmark for where they went--one of the key elements of it. None of it is completed. All of those earmarks are designated for certain places and certain manufacturers. It is something the people of this country, again, steadfastly are in opposition to. I was interested to hear the chairman talk about amendments being allowed and that there will be debate and discussion. That is not the message we got through the media, which the majority leader didn't share with us. My understanding is that we are going to take up three issues. He is going to fill up the tree, which means no other amendments will be allowed. The issues will be the secret holds, the DREAM Act, and, of course, don't ask, don't tell. I hope the chairman is accurate here because there are many issues that many Americans would feel are very important: treatment of terrorists, Guantanamo Bay, and so many other issues that affect the readiness of the men and women and their training and ability, as opposed to the DREAM Act and a repeal of don't ask, don't tell. Let me point out again that this issue is not on don't ask, don't tell, not an assessment of the effect on the readiness and morale of the men and women in the military. This language is a repeal, then signed onto by the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. One wonders, what about the Chief of Staff of the Army? What about the Chief of Naval Operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, all of whom have objected to this provision because it is being railroaded through without a proper assessment on the morale and effectiveness of our military? I read from the bill itself that this Secretary's memorandum says: . . . determine any impacts to military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion [et cetera] that may result from repeal of the law. That may result from the repeal of the law. Every provision says that the law will be repealed if the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sign off on a report that doesn't assess the effect on morale and readiness of the men and women in the military. It would only assess impacts of repeal. That is not right. We are in two wars. Should we not assess the impact on the readiness, the morale, and effectiveness of the men and women who are in harm's way, who would be affected by the repeal of don't ask, don't tell? Should we not have that assessment? What the chairman has done and what the majority of the Democrats have done is in blatant disregard for the morale, effectiveness, recruitment, and retention of the men and women serving in the military today. Why couldn't we have done what our service chiefs want and what our senior enlisted people want, and that is an assessment of battle effectiveness and morale regarding a repeal of it, and then decide whether to repeal don't ask, don't tell? This is really a remarkable act on the part of the Democrats because this is a political issue, just as the DREAM Act is a political issue. It is a political issue. I understand the season. I understand it is not that far between now and the elections. But to use the Defense bill, which has to do with defending our national security interests when we are in two wars, to pursue a social agenda and legislative agenda to galvanize voting blocks I think is reprehensible. We will be talking a lot about this in the next day or so. I appeal to the American people, who understand what we are about here. I wish to return to the DREAM Act for another minute. If we enact any legislation that provides people with citizenship in this country without securing our borders, then we have placed ourselves in a situation where we will have more people in this country illegally and we will have to address that issue again. It is no longer a border issue; it is a national security issue. The drug cartels and the human smugglers have now posed a threat to our Nation's security. That is why our Secretary of State, just a couple weeks ago, said the situation in Mexico was comparable to that of Colombia in the 1980s, when they had an active insurgency called the FARC. To use the Defense authorization bill as a vehicle to enact legislation, which there would be numerous amendments to, there would be hours and hours of debate--by the way, the amendment I proposed about 10 years ago was a rifle shot on a specific issue. This is, of course, a major piece of legislation that affects at least, I am told, 800,000 people who are living in this country illegally. I hope that we will return to the days I remember in the past when we had unlimited amendments, unlimited debate, and that we move forward in a bipartisan fashion on this issue. Unfortunately, the politicization of this very important legislation that affects our ability to fight and win wars is being compromised for short-term political purposes. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if I understood the majority leader's words, in a rather unusual departure from anything I have ever seen in the Senate, if he receives sufficient votes to proceed to the bill, he would take up certain amendments that are on his agenda, and then, in lameduck session, we might consider other amendments. Coincidentally, the amendments the majority leader would agree to would be two of them that are totally unrelated to national defense. One is the DREAM Act and the other is secret holds, as I understand it. Then other amendments of importance, which are relevant, which those of us on this side of the aisle have, which are important, maybe we would take them up, under certain circumstances, in a lameduck session.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes.

Mr. McCAIN. So, again, I say to the majority leader, you are going to ask Members on this side to proceed to the bill without us knowing what amendments you are going to allow and those amendments that may be considered in a lameduck session. It is well known that the DREAM Act is also one of the amendments the Senator from Nevada, the majority leader, has said will be part of the prelameduck session, which happens to be preelection, which happens not to have a thing to do with our Nation's defense. Other amendments that may be directly related to national defense will not be allowed by the majority leader, which is his right, to fill up the tree, as he did last year after we spent a week on the hate crimes bill, which had nothing to do with our Nation's defense. I ask the majority leader to draw a conclusion or surmise that perhaps this has everything to do with elections and nothing to do with national defense.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object, and I will object.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will not take up the time of the majority leader--I have a statement I will present at this time--except to say again that this is a transparent attempt to win an election. That is what this is all about. Why would we want to put the DREAM Act first before the election? Why not after we come back? Why not take up the secret holds after we come back? And, of course, the don't ask, don't tell issue is one of significant importance to the American people. Last year, after spending a week on hate crimes--which, again, had nothing to do with this Nation's defense--the majority leader, with the agreement of the committee chairman, filed cloture and cut off debate and discussion of amendments that many of us felt were important. I have been around this body for a number of years. I have never seen such politicization of our Nation's security as we are seeing in this process we are following. This politicization that has taken place over the last 2 years is very unfortunate. For as long as I have been privileged to be a Member of this body, the Senate has done a good job of keeping the National Defense Authorization Act out of partisan political fights that have little or nothing to do with the U.S. military, the brave men and women serving in it, and our national defense programs more broadly. There has even been a healthy degree of bipartisan cooperation to prevent items that are unrelated to our national defense from crowding out time for debate and amendments germane to our national security priorities. Sure, we have had fights over this legislation in the past, and at times they have been pretty heated. But they were debates overwhelmingly focused on national defense. And whatever our differences we had through that process, we came together at the end of the day to keep this legislation focused on our national defense and all who ensure it. What troubles me is how far off course we have gotten over the past 2 years. Under this majority leader and this chairman, we have witnessed the unfortunate and growing politicization of the National Defense Authorization Act. Time to offer and debate important defense-related amendments to this bill on the floor is being limited or cut off so that the majority leader can push through highly political legislation that has little or nothing to do with national defense--legislation that would never be referred to the Armed Services Committee if it were introduced independently. The Hate Crimes Act would never have been referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee. The DREAM Act would never have been referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee. This is turning legislation related to our national defense and military preparedness into a vehicle to force a partisan agenda through the Senate, often on a party-line vote. And their desperation, because they see the November 2 elections coming up, is palpable. What is worse, the majority leader is pushing this controversial agenda under the cover of supporting our troops, knowing that the National Defense Authorization Act is a must-pass bill and whatever else is in it will inevitably become law as a result. Last year it was legislation on hate crimes. I am not saying this is not an important issue or an issue that the Senate should not have taken up and debated in due time. But hate crimes legislation has nothing to do with our national defense. Of course, the majority and the committee chairman will always get creative on how to interpret ``national defense.'' But the plain fact is, if hate crimes legislation were introduced independently, it would be referred to the Judiciary Committee, not the Armed Services Committee. Yet the majority leader and the committee chairman put that legislation onto the Defense Authorization Act last year, promptly eliminating the ability to offer amendments. Then the Senate spent a week locked in debate over legislation that had nothing to do with national defense--precious time that should have been spent discussing legislation that actually pertained to our military priorities. Things are only getting worse this year. We learned on Monday that before we go home for this election cycle, there will be no debate at all on the Defense authorization bill, except for what we are told--the majority leader just said he has not decided--but we are told there will be no debate at all on the Defense authorization bill except for three amendments handpicked by the majority leader for narrow political reasons 2 months before an election. One of those amendments will be on banning the use of so-called secret holds. Another will be, we are told, on the DREAM Act which allows the children of immigrants who entered the country illegally to become U.S. citizens. Again, I am not saying the Senate should not consider these pieces of legislation, but neither of them would be taken up independently in the Armed Services Committee because they have nothing to do with national defense. The majority leader has no business putting these two amendments on the National Defense Authorization Act--and certainly not two of only three amendments that will even get voted on--at a time when our military is engaged in two wars overseas and when numerous defense issues demand the Senate's time. That leads us to an amendment to strike the provision in the bill that would repeal the don't ask, don't tell law as the only other issue the Senate will be able to debate and vote on. Unlike the other issues I have mentioned, a repeal of don't ask, don't tell, while controversial, is related to the National Defense Authorization Act. It is an issue that belongs in the Armed Services Committee. The problem is the truncated process and partisan manner in which the majority is forcing through a de facto repeal of a longstanding law that may have significant ramifications for our military force during a time of two wars, all to fulfill a campaign promise made by President Obama in 2008, barely 2 months before the election. I want to make one thing very clear: I do not oppose or support the repeal of don't ask, don't tell at this time. I do oppose taking legislative action prior to the completion of a real and thorough review of the law. A complete survey to evaluate the impact of repeal on the men and women serving in our military should be concluded before moving forward. When the Senate does consider taking legislative action, that action should be based on the survey of our men and women in uniform, and their leaders. Unfortunately and inexplicably, the majority is following an opposite approach. It is pushing for a vote on the don't ask, don't tell law before the Defense Department has concluded its survey of the opinions of our force on an important matter that will directly affect them and their families. The majority is doing this in complete disregard of the views of our men and women in uniform, as well as our four service chiefs--the heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines--who are responsible for the battlefield effectiveness of their services. All four of the military leaders wrote letters encouraging Congress to wait until the completion of the survey of the force before taking any legislative action on don't ask, don't tell. Their opinions have been disregarded thus far, and it seems that the chairman and the majority leader do not care about their views either. The majority will say this amendment does not actually repeal don't ask, don't tell; it merely authorizes its repeal pending a certification from the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that a repeal would not harm military effectiveness. Just those three officials--not the four service chiefs or Congress, for that matter. This is a legislative gimmick and a distinction without a difference. In reality, the majority is sending a signal to our men and women in uniform that we will not wait to hear their views or give them any due consideration once the Pentagon survey is finished. Instead, the Senate will turn its responsibility to legislate on this important matter over to three officials who have already publicly stated their support for repealing don't ask, don't tell. It is a blatant message of disrespect to our men and women in uniform that Congress is unwilling to even wait to hear what the force has to say on this important matter before pushing ahead with a controversial political vote less than 2 months before an election. That is why I am opposed to debating and amending the National Defense Authorization Act at this time. I feel very strongly that we should wait--actually wait--and not take any action on this controversial issue until we hear from our troops on what they think the impact of repeal would be. Then the Senate should take time to consider their views before deciding what we think is the best course of action. The only rationale for doing this now is a transparently partisan and political one. After limited debate on only three amendments, two of which are not related to our national defense, the majority leader will then apparently push for a final vote on this legislation--or delay until the lameduck session--that also contains a controversial provision permitting abortions in military facilities, an irresponsible cut to the Iraqi security forces, and $2.8 billion in porkbarrel earmarks that the President did not request and the military says it does not need. There will be no chance to debate these or other defense-related issues. The effect of all of this is that the majority leader is turning legislation on our national defense into a political football. Debate is limited and unrelated. Politically controversial amendments are crowding out our limited time to debate actual military and defense- related legislation. This is a corruption of the principles and procedures of the Senate if there ever was one, and it disrespects the longstanding traditions of the Senate. It is only making it more likely that the National Defense Authorization Act will one day go the way of so many other authorizations bills, which is to say nowhere. This kind of transparent politicization of our national defense should anger every Member of this body--Democrats and Republicans. The men and women of our Armed Forces deserve better, and we should demand better. I regret to see that the long-respected and revered Senate Armed Services Committee has evolved into a forum for a social agenda of the liberal left of the Senate. I will do everything in my power, if we regain the majority, to see that the Senate Armed Services Committee returns to the tradition of addressing only those issues that are totally related to the defense of this Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would like to take a moment today to recognize an extraordinary soldier and son of Arizona who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our Nation. SGT Martin Anthony Lugo selflessly gave his life on the battlefield in Afghanistan on August 19, 2010, while serving his sixth, yes his sixth, deployment in the war on terror. Sergeant Lugo was killed while leading his Rangers in a fierce firefight that also claimed the lives of over a dozen Taliban fighters. Sergeant Lugo's service to his country began after his graduation from high school in Tucson, AZ. He soon found himself in the Army recruiter's office and enlisted as an infantryman in September 2004. After distinguishing himself throughout basic training and the basic airborne course, he was assigned to the Ranger Selection and Training Program at Fort Benning, GA. Upon graduation in April 2005, he was assigned to Company C, 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment. Over the next 5 years, he would serve as an ammunition handler, automatic rifleman, team leader, and squad leader. During this time, he would deploy twice to Iraq and four times to Afghanistan. In addition to graduating from the U.S. Army Ranger course and earning his Ranger Tab, Sergeant Lugo was also a graduate of the warrior leader course and the reconnaissance and surveillance leader course. He has been honored with the Army Commendation Medal and the Army Good Conduct Medal, in addition to various unit and campaign awards. Sadly, he was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, and Purple Heart. ``Rangers Lead the Way!'' has long been the motto of the Army Rangers, and Sergeant Lugo clearly took this to heart. The fact that this exceptional Ranger spent his best years constantly deployed to a combat zone should serve as an example to all Americans of the selflessness and dedication of our young men and women in uniform. Words can do little to recognize the true sacrifice required of a young man in his prime to answer the call when asked to deploy six times in 6 years. I am truly saddened that the lives of men like Martin Lugo are too often honored only in their deaths. Nonetheless, it is a far greater sin to fail to recognize them at all. I call on my colleagues to join me today in honoring the life and service of Sergeant Lugo, and in expressing my sincerest condolences to his mother Maria Marin; his father Martin Lugo; his stepfather Esteban Oropeza; his sister Leslie Bencic; and his brother-in-law Christopher Bencic.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I won't repeat myself over and over. The fact is, last year, the Senator from Michigan brought up hate crimes, filled up the tree, and we spent almost all of the first 2 weeks debating hate crimes, which had nothing to do with the purpose and mission of the Senate Armed Services Committee. It is the first time I have ever seen such a thing happen. I am not going to let it happen again if I have anything to say about it. As I have said to the Senator from Michigan, I will talk to our leadership and our caucus and all the Members over on this side of the aisle, and when we get back a decision will be made as to whether we will object to the motion to proceed. In the meantime, I object.

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Arizona is saying that the Senator from Michigan filled up the tree; did he not? Was the tree filled up? You are the chairman of the committee.

Mr. McCAIN. My response is did you prevent the tree from being filled?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a short colloquy with my colleague from New York.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, my understanding, I say to my colleague from New York, is this provides for 1,000 new Border Patrol agents; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. One-hundred ICE, $39 million for Customs and Border Protection, 250 new Customs and Border Patrol agents you mentioned, communications equipment, money to deploy forward operating bases. I wish to go over it again with my colleague.